by Doctor Science
Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by historian James Loewen is one of the two books I think are most necessary to understand the 2016 election results (the other, as I've said before, is Sady Doyle's Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock, and Fear… and Why). It's necessary because Trump's America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They've been cleansed, you might say.
Strictly speaking, "Sundown Towns" were towns where signs were posted warning African-Americans to leave by sundown. "When I began this research," Loewen says on his Sundown Towns website, "I expected to find about 10 sundown towns in Illinois (my home state) and perhaps 50 across the country. Instead, I have found about 507 in Illinois and thousands across the United States."
Not all of these towns had warning signs: Loewen defines a Sundown Town as "any organized jurisdiction that for decades kept African-Americans or other groups from living in it and was thus "all-white"[2] on purpose." Although Loewen (like me!) started out assuming that many places are "lily-white" because of happenstance or diffuse economic forces, he discovered that this basically never happens. Any time you see a place in America with more than a few hundred people that's 95% white or more, it's because white people made a choice and an effort to keep it that way. It is never an accident or happenstance.
How do we know it wasn't an accident? Because there used to be fewer lily-white places in the US, even in the North and West. At Orcinus, Sara Robinson summarized Loewen's research:
After the Civil War, newly-freed black families spread out across the country, looking for places to start over. By 1890, there was hardly a town in America that didn't have at least a small community of black tradesmen or farmers — aspiring families putting down roots and planning better futures. There was no town too small, no corner so remote, that a handful of African-Americans didn't take refuge there — hoping against hope they'd finally found a place that was far enough away from Jim Crow.
But Loewen noticed something else. Starting in the 1890 census — and continuing up until the 1950 one — these communities started to vanish from the census figures. Towns that had 50 or 60 African-Americans in one census had exactly zero in the next. It was like watching these small lights just wink out, as these communities one by one went sundown.
As I said: if you live in a predominantly white town or suburb, the odds are overwhelming that one of them was yours. It wasn't an accident. It didn't happen just because the houses were too expensive, or the winters were too cold, or they just never got around to moving there. Loewen's research shows that black families settled absolutely everywhere — almost certainly including where you are. The reason they're not there now is that somebody in your community, at some point in the past, decided to force them out.
Sometimes places were "racially cleansed" with terrible violence, sometimes it was "mere" threats. Along with the violence, towns wrote ordinances barring African-Americans from being in town after dark, or from renting or owning property. These ordinances were common as new towns were established, places where black people would never be allowed to live.
By the 1930s, and especially in the East, it was common to have restrictive covenants to prevent African-Americans (and/or Jews, Asians, or Native Americans) from living in "lily-white" areas. The Federal Housing Administration, which was a major force encouraging homeownership and the growth of suburbs (especially after WWII), was explicitly discriminatory and segregationist, denying mortgages to African-Americans and to white people who might have been willing to live in their neighborhoods. Loewen calls the result "Sundown Suburbs", where non-whites were excluded by more subtle means than violence (usually).
Loewen concluded:
Outside the traditional South—states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare—probably a majority of all incorporated places kept out African Americans. … Illinois, for example, had 671 towns and cities with more than 1,000 people in 1970, of which 475—71%—were all-white in census after census. … almost all of these 475 were sundown towns. There is reason to believe that more than half of all towns in Oregon, Indiana, Ohio, the Cumberlands, the Ozarks, and diverse other areas were also all-white on purpose. Sundown suburbs are found from Darien, Connecticut, to La Jolla, California, and are even more prevalent; indeed, most suburbs began life as sundown towns.
Loewen has a Sundown Towns website including a database of known or suspected sundown towns and guides to researching sundown towns.
Look up places you've lived in that database. Every time you see another article about "understanding Trump voters", look up the history of the place they're talking about. If it's not in the database, look up its demographics (Wikipedia usually has it). What percentage of the population is African-American? If it's less than 2%, some type of exclusion went on in the past, and the effects are still there.
White Americans have been brought up not to notice racial exclusion, not to think of lily-white communities as something that needs to be explained. African-Americans, of course, have had no such luxury. Every black American I know over the age of 40 recalls childhood car trips where they heard the grown-ups discussing what places would be safe to stop–for the night, for a meal, or just to use the bathroom. The Negro Motorist Green Book compiled such information, and the 1956 edition has been put on a Google map. This database is basically the inverse of the Sundown Towns database, and it can be equally eye-opening for a White person, to look around your state and see how few islands of safety it contained.
What does this mean for the election?
It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):
is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren't welcome elsewhere. It's not just Black Americans who were excluded or "cleansed" from much of the country, after all: Hispanics, Asians, all kinds of immigrants, Jews (historically, at least)–not to mention sexual minorities.
White self-segregation is where the pronounced urban/rural divide in the election came from. Combined with the disproportionate power rural areas get in the Electoral College, and we're looking at President Donald Trump.
May God have mercy upon us all.
[1] Loewen — and I — focus on exclusion of Black Americans because it's comparatively easy to document, has a long track record, and other types of exclusion act as add-ons: it's extremely rare to find a community that excludes Hispanics, Asians, or Jews that does not also (or first) exclude Blacks. Towns that advertised themselves as "Christian Communities" (many did, before the 1970s) and excluded Jews somehow overlooked including African-American Christians, for instance.
[2] "All-white" is in quotes because sundown towns often had one black family, or a small group of servants, who were permitted to live there while all others were excluded.
states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare
This is an point worth noting. The US has a tendency to connect extreme racism with the South, but sundown towns are prevalent in places outside the Deep South. (the website lists only 8 towns in Mississippi) This is not to claim some sort of prize, just to note that ability to see the sins of folks far away and not acknowledge them when they are next door…
states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare
This is an point worth noting. The US has a tendency to connect extreme racism with the South, but sundown towns are prevalent in places outside the Deep South. (the website lists only 8 towns in Mississippi) This is not to claim some sort of prize, just to note that ability to see the sins of folks far away and not acknowledge them when they are next door…
states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare
This is an point worth noting. The US has a tendency to connect extreme racism with the South, but sundown towns are prevalent in places outside the Deep South. (the website lists only 8 towns in Mississippi) This is not to claim some sort of prize, just to note that ability to see the sins of folks far away and not acknowledge them when they are next door…
I’ve heard the argument put forth that the north, not being used to being an integrated society, found it more difficult to handle internal immigration, while the south had worked out a(n unfavorable) place for slaves (and subsequently freemen) in their social order and thus had little problem accepting their simple presence (so long as they stay within the role assigned to them).
I’ve heard the argument put forth that the north, not being used to being an integrated society, found it more difficult to handle internal immigration, while the south had worked out a(n unfavorable) place for slaves (and subsequently freemen) in their social order and thus had little problem accepting their simple presence (so long as they stay within the role assigned to them).
I’ve heard the argument put forth that the north, not being used to being an integrated society, found it more difficult to handle internal immigration, while the south had worked out a(n unfavorable) place for slaves (and subsequently freemen) in their social order and thus had little problem accepting their simple presence (so long as they stay within the role assigned to them).
Dick Gregory: “In the South they don’t care how close I get as long as I don’t get too big. In the North, they don’t care how big I get as long as I don’t get too close.”
Dick Gregory: “In the South they don’t care how close I get as long as I don’t get too big. In the North, they don’t care how big I get as long as I don’t get too close.”
Dick Gregory: “In the South they don’t care how close I get as long as I don’t get too big. In the North, they don’t care how big I get as long as I don’t get too close.”
dick gregory nails it
dick gregory nails it
dick gregory nails it
And the number one reason conservatives want to make sure non-white Americans never have real political power is because they think they will be treated the same way. I hope they’re right. It’s long past time they learned what real fear is like.
And the number one reason conservatives want to make sure non-white Americans never have real political power is because they think they will be treated the same way. I hope they’re right. It’s long past time they learned what real fear is like.
And the number one reason conservatives want to make sure non-white Americans never have real political power is because they think they will be treated the same way. I hope they’re right. It’s long past time they learned what real fear is like.
If you look through Loewen’s database you’ll see that there are, in fact, a number of sundown counties in northern GA & AL.
In most of the South, blacks *couldn’t* be excluded because their labor was too necessary.
If you look through Loewen’s database you’ll see that there are, in fact, a number of sundown counties in northern GA & AL.
In most of the South, blacks *couldn’t* be excluded because their labor was too necessary.
If you look through Loewen’s database you’ll see that there are, in fact, a number of sundown counties in northern GA & AL.
In most of the South, blacks *couldn’t* be excluded because their labor was too necessary.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
Doc,
17 for Alabama, 15 for Georgia. You quote Loewen saying that there were 475 for Illinois.
Again, I’m not saying that the South somehow comes out better, it just underlines the problem is a national one, rather than something confined to the deep South.
Doc,
17 for Alabama, 15 for Georgia. You quote Loewen saying that there were 475 for Illinois.
Again, I’m not saying that the South somehow comes out better, it just underlines the problem is a national one, rather than something confined to the deep South.
Doc,
17 for Alabama, 15 for Georgia. You quote Loewen saying that there were 475 for Illinois.
Again, I’m not saying that the South somehow comes out better, it just underlines the problem is a national one, rather than something confined to the deep South.
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back
I like the liberals in San Jose. Civilised people.
And maybe you could take your own step back ?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back
I like the liberals in San Jose. Civilised people.
And maybe you could take your own step back ?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back
I like the liberals in San Jose. Civilised people.
And maybe you could take your own step back ?
Meanwhile, Star Trek: Discovery….
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/star-trek-discovery-casts-black-female-lead/
Meanwhile, Star Trek: Discovery….
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/star-trek-discovery-casts-black-female-lead/
Meanwhile, Star Trek: Discovery….
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/star-trek-discovery-casts-black-female-lead/
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
No kidding. You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old. Every time my IPhone helpfully tells me what’s “trending” it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah.
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
Back to work. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Festivus for the Restofus, etc.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
No kidding. You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old. Every time my IPhone helpfully tells me what’s “trending” it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah.
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
Back to work. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Festivus for the Restofus, etc.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.
No kidding. You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old. Every time my IPhone helpfully tells me what’s “trending” it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah.
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
Back to work. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Festivus for the Restofus, etc.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Or do the two things go together like a horse and carriage?
And it’s so lovely to welcome Dick Cheney back.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Or do the two things go together like a horse and carriage?
And it’s so lovely to welcome Dick Cheney back.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
So is it racism, or the the Russians?
Or do the two things go together like a horse and carriage?
And it’s so lovely to welcome Dick Cheney back.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism
I figure it’s the end of life as we know it because of Trump + regulatory capture + plain old greed.
But mostly just Trump, because he’s just the kind of flaming asshole to Tweet us into WWIII.
FWIW, everybody’s got their own bucket of same old shit. Nobody makes anybody read anything they don’t want to read.
it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism
I figure it’s the end of life as we know it because of Trump + regulatory capture + plain old greed.
But mostly just Trump, because he’s just the kind of flaming asshole to Tweet us into WWIII.
FWIW, everybody’s got their own bucket of same old shit. Nobody makes anybody read anything they don’t want to read.
it’s the same old shit about how it’s the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism
I figure it’s the end of life as we know it because of Trump + regulatory capture + plain old greed.
But mostly just Trump, because he’s just the kind of flaming asshole to Tweet us into WWIII.
FWIW, everybody’s got their own bucket of same old shit. Nobody makes anybody read anything they don’t want to read.
You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
As for Trump, well, all those neverTrumpers seem to be falling all over themselves kowtowing to the guy, as he appoints a Clown Cabinet, and a NSC head who wants the country Muslimrein, a likely CEA head (Kudlow) who is an economic ignoramus, etc. So yes. There is very serious reason for concern about Trump. Sometimes “the same old shit” is accurate.
You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
As for Trump, well, all those neverTrumpers seem to be falling all over themselves kowtowing to the guy, as he appoints a Clown Cabinet, and a NSC head who wants the country Muslimrein, a likely CEA head (Kudlow) who is an economic ignoramus, etc. So yes. There is very serious reason for concern about Trump. Sometimes “the same old shit” is accurate.
You’d think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
As for Trump, well, all those neverTrumpers seem to be falling all over themselves kowtowing to the guy, as he appoints a Clown Cabinet, and a NSC head who wants the country Muslimrein, a likely CEA head (Kudlow) who is an economic ignoramus, etc. So yes. There is very serious reason for concern about Trump. Sometimes “the same old shit” is accurate.
There’s also the guy defending attempted purges of DoE staffers by ‘splaining that global warming might not be a thing, ’cause people have gotten things wrong sometimes over the course of Earth’s 5500 year history.
Makes sense. I mean, that’s a real long time.
There’s also the guy defending attempted purges of DoE staffers by ‘splaining that global warming might not be a thing, ’cause people have gotten things wrong sometimes over the course of Earth’s 5500 year history.
Makes sense. I mean, that’s a real long time.
There’s also the guy defending attempted purges of DoE staffers by ‘splaining that global warming might not be a thing, ’cause people have gotten things wrong sometimes over the course of Earth’s 5500 year history.
Makes sense. I mean, that’s a real long time.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
That’s a crap-ton of straw, at least as far as this blog goes. I’m not sure if anyone here believes a single one of these things, and I’m almost certain no one believes all of them.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
That’s a crap-ton of straw, at least as far as this blog goes. I’m not sure if anyone here believes a single one of these things, and I’m almost certain no one believes all of them.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.
That’s a crap-ton of straw, at least as far as this blog goes. I’m not sure if anyone here believes a single one of these things, and I’m almost certain no one believes all of them.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Maybe a quote demonstrating this would help.
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Maybe a quote demonstrating this would help.
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Maybe a quote demonstrating this would help.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Harping on racism in one’s country is kind of like harping on feces in one’s sandwich.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Harping on racism in one’s country is kind of like harping on feces in one’s sandwich.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
I’ll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
Harping on racism in one’s country is kind of like harping on feces in one’s sandwich.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Just because minorities face fewer obstacles today (legally and socially) than in the past does not mean that there aren’t serious structural and institutional practices that are still blocking them (disproportionately) from equal access to economic and social mobility.
Not that economic and social mobility is what it used to be .
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
Just because minorities face fewer obstacles today (legally and socially) than in the past does not mean that there aren’t serious structural and institutional practices that are still blocking them (disproportionately) from equal access to economic and social mobility.
Not that economic and social mobility is what it used to be .
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
Just because minorities face fewer obstacles today (legally and socially) than in the past does not mean that there aren’t serious structural and institutional practices that are still blocking them (disproportionately) from equal access to economic and social mobility.
Not that economic and social mobility is what it used to be .
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
I’m still reeling from Yama’s post. This whole polarisation thing between the so-called “SJ left” (presumably McKinney’s “moral preening”) and just-plain-folks, with the implication that it is illegitimate/paranoid to focus on issues of racism, sexism etc, is very hard to counter effectively, when the concommitant implication is that racism, sexism etc either don’t exist, or are so minimal that they need no consideration. Personally, I never claimed that HRC was “freaking flawless”, or any of the other exaggerated, sarcastic strawman stuff McK adduces, but by God when he minimises the coming situation “because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah” he exemplifies how little the concerns of the majority of the people who voted in the election are understood by the people who voted Trump, or the by the righwingers like McKinney and Marty who abstained, and this is terrifying for the future of the country. Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
I’m still reeling from Yama’s post. This whole polarisation thing between the so-called “SJ left” (presumably McKinney’s “moral preening”) and just-plain-folks, with the implication that it is illegitimate/paranoid to focus on issues of racism, sexism etc, is very hard to counter effectively, when the concommitant implication is that racism, sexism etc either don’t exist, or are so minimal that they need no consideration. Personally, I never claimed that HRC was “freaking flawless”, or any of the other exaggerated, sarcastic strawman stuff McK adduces, but by God when he minimises the coming situation “because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah” he exemplifies how little the concerns of the majority of the people who voted in the election are understood by the people who voted Trump, or the by the righwingers like McKinney and Marty who abstained, and this is terrifying for the future of the country. Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas’s decency? I’m certainly not the one to try.
I’m still reeling from Yama’s post. This whole polarisation thing between the so-called “SJ left” (presumably McKinney’s “moral preening”) and just-plain-folks, with the implication that it is illegitimate/paranoid to focus on issues of racism, sexism etc, is very hard to counter effectively, when the concommitant implication is that racism, sexism etc either don’t exist, or are so minimal that they need no consideration. Personally, I never claimed that HRC was “freaking flawless”, or any of the other exaggerated, sarcastic strawman stuff McK adduces, but by God when he minimises the coming situation “because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah” he exemplifies how little the concerns of the majority of the people who voted in the election are understood by the people who voted Trump, or the by the righwingers like McKinney and Marty who abstained, and this is terrifying for the future of the country. Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all. Rather I see it as an attempt to point out that historical racist practices still have their effects – that a part of what we see in residential patterns is a consequence of those practices.
FWIW, while there certainly have been places with real estate covenants that excluded Jews, I think that did not much affect where Jews live today. I think the patterns are mostly due to the initial concentration of Jewish immigrants in the northeast – especially NY of course – to the desire to seek communities of co-religionists, and to a general tendency to live in urban areas. (In 1939 Jews were about 10% of the population of Poland, and 30% of the population of Warsaw.) The latter, of course, stemmed heavily from restrictions on land ownership and other anti-Semitic laws, but that was Europe.
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all. Rather I see it as an attempt to point out that historical racist practices still have their effects – that a part of what we see in residential patterns is a consequence of those practices.
FWIW, while there certainly have been places with real estate covenants that excluded Jews, I think that did not much affect where Jews live today. I think the patterns are mostly due to the initial concentration of Jewish immigrants in the northeast – especially NY of course – to the desire to seek communities of co-religionists, and to a general tendency to live in urban areas. (In 1939 Jews were about 10% of the population of Poland, and 30% of the population of Warsaw.) The latter, of course, stemmed heavily from restrictions on land ownership and other anti-Semitic laws, but that was Europe.
My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all. Rather I see it as an attempt to point out that historical racist practices still have their effects – that a part of what we see in residential patterns is a consequence of those practices.
FWIW, while there certainly have been places with real estate covenants that excluded Jews, I think that did not much affect where Jews live today. I think the patterns are mostly due to the initial concentration of Jewish immigrants in the northeast – especially NY of course – to the desire to seek communities of co-religionists, and to a general tendency to live in urban areas. (In 1939 Jews were about 10% of the population of Poland, and 30% of the population of Warsaw.) The latter, of course, stemmed heavily from restrictions on land ownership and other anti-Semitic laws, but that was Europe.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
Sarcasm–in response to the recurring theme that HRC lost because of racism, as in absurd statements like this:
“It’s necessary because Trump’s America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They’ve been cleansed, you might say.”.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Have at it. It’s been so endlessly and unjustifiably repeated and used as an excuse/accusation for any and everything that it’s lost all impact and credibility.
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Which is not a discussion I can have right now due to other stuff.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America. That’s all. Not saying the Donald is great or anything. He can be a clown and bigotry can still not be the last and final answer to every question.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
Sarcasm–in response to the recurring theme that HRC lost because of racism, as in absurd statements like this:
“It’s necessary because Trump’s America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They’ve been cleansed, you might say.”.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Have at it. It’s been so endlessly and unjustifiably repeated and used as an excuse/accusation for any and everything that it’s lost all impact and credibility.
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Which is not a discussion I can have right now due to other stuff.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America. That’s all. Not saying the Donald is great or anything. He can be a clown and bigotry can still not be the last and final answer to every question.
Maybe this was supposed to be funny?
Sarcasm–in response to the recurring theme that HRC lost because of racism, as in absurd statements like this:
“It’s necessary because Trump’s America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They’ve been cleansed, you might say.”.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Have at it. It’s been so endlessly and unjustifiably repeated and used as an excuse/accusation for any and everything that it’s lost all impact and credibility.
Hooray that we’ve made things better. Doesn’t mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Which is not a discussion I can have right now due to other stuff.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America. That’s all. Not saying the Donald is great or anything. He can be a clown and bigotry can still not be the last and final answer to every question.
Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
Thank you. I am confused by anyone who isn’t terrified right now. I wish that “principled” Republicans would resist what’s unfolding here, but they seem to be right on board.
Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
Thank you. I am confused by anyone who isn’t terrified right now. I wish that “principled” Republicans would resist what’s unfolding here, but they seem to be right on board.
Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.
Thank you. I am confused by anyone who isn’t terrified right now. I wish that “principled” Republicans would resist what’s unfolding here, but they seem to be right on board.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I think perhaps that it is hard for those who didn’t live thru it to even imagine what it was like. Books like Sundown Towns just give you a hint. For example, can you imagine a family (not just in California but in San Francisco) totally cutting all ties with a daughter who had the bad taste to marry a black man? (A man who was first a star NFL player, and then long time head of the Players’ Association — i.e. not just a dumb jock.) But it happened; President Obama’s family, and the way they handled his mother’s marriage, was really quite exceptional.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
Witness only, on a different topic, sapient’s comments here. Nobody here is a fan of Trump. But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening? Not helpful. And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I think perhaps that it is hard for those who didn’t live thru it to even imagine what it was like. Books like Sundown Towns just give you a hint. For example, can you imagine a family (not just in California but in San Francisco) totally cutting all ties with a daughter who had the bad taste to marry a black man? (A man who was first a star NFL player, and then long time head of the Players’ Association — i.e. not just a dumb jock.) But it happened; President Obama’s family, and the way they handled his mother’s marriage, was really quite exceptional.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
Witness only, on a different topic, sapient’s comments here. Nobody here is a fan of Trump. But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening? Not helpful. And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
It’s probably true that there’s a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.
That doesn’t necessarily suggest less harping is called for.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I think perhaps that it is hard for those who didn’t live thru it to even imagine what it was like. Books like Sundown Towns just give you a hint. For example, can you imagine a family (not just in California but in San Francisco) totally cutting all ties with a daughter who had the bad taste to marry a black man? (A man who was first a star NFL player, and then long time head of the Players’ Association — i.e. not just a dumb jock.) But it happened; President Obama’s family, and the way they handled his mother’s marriage, was really quite exceptional.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
Witness only, on a different topic, sapient’s comments here. Nobody here is a fan of Trump. But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening? Not helpful. And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all.
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
GFTNC, we can have a conversation about Trump being bad for the country for a variety of reasons. I’d probably agree (although I’m nowhere near the high dudgeon I see here and elsewhere) there is real risk with the Mad Tweeter in the Oval Office (if he was actually there and not Trump Tower). What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen. Or that, “ok, it happened but it really hasn’t done all that much”. Or pretending that people who drop out of high school and can’t read are being discriminated against because they, what, can’t get into and out of college? Can’t get a good job? Or ignoring the hard fact that we have a broad range of ethnicities in the US and many do quite well and are improving all the time, so what are we talking about really? Some kind of metered, relative bigotry where whites exclude X percentage of blacks, Y percentage of Hispanics but, in many areas, zero percentage of Asians. Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all.
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
GFTNC, we can have a conversation about Trump being bad for the country for a variety of reasons. I’d probably agree (although I’m nowhere near the high dudgeon I see here and elsewhere) there is real risk with the Mad Tweeter in the Oval Office (if he was actually there and not Trump Tower). What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen. Or that, “ok, it happened but it really hasn’t done all that much”. Or pretending that people who drop out of high school and can’t read are being discriminated against because they, what, can’t get into and out of college? Can’t get a good job? Or ignoring the hard fact that we have a broad range of ethnicities in the US and many do quite well and are improving all the time, so what are we talking about really? Some kind of metered, relative bigotry where whites exclude X percentage of blacks, Y percentage of Hispanics but, in many areas, zero percentage of Asians. Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
I didn’t read the OP as complaining about racism today at all.
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
GFTNC, we can have a conversation about Trump being bad for the country for a variety of reasons. I’d probably agree (although I’m nowhere near the high dudgeon I see here and elsewhere) there is real risk with the Mad Tweeter in the Oval Office (if he was actually there and not Trump Tower). What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen. Or that, “ok, it happened but it really hasn’t done all that much”. Or pretending that people who drop out of high school and can’t read are being discriminated against because they, what, can’t get into and out of college? Can’t get a good job? Or ignoring the hard fact that we have a broad range of ethnicities in the US and many do quite well and are improving all the time, so what are we talking about really? Some kind of metered, relative bigotry where whites exclude X percentage of blacks, Y percentage of Hispanics but, in many areas, zero percentage of Asians. Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
WJ said at 12:57 what I would have said if I wasn’t chock full of Holiday Snark.
WJ said at 12:57 what I would have said if I wasn’t chock full of Holiday Snark.
WJ said at 12:57 what I would have said if I wasn’t chock full of Holiday Snark.
Re Nigel at 10:53:
I think part of the greatness of Star Trek is that it didn’t preach about diversity. It just assumed it. And in doing so, it made a significant contribution to changing attitudes, in a way preaching never would have. Changing them on women in positions of authority. Changing them on race, and on minorities in positions of authority. And on and on.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
Re Nigel at 10:53:
I think part of the greatness of Star Trek is that it didn’t preach about diversity. It just assumed it. And in doing so, it made a significant contribution to changing attitudes, in a way preaching never would have. Changing them on women in positions of authority. Changing them on race, and on minorities in positions of authority. And on and on.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
Re Nigel at 10:53:
I think part of the greatness of Star Trek is that it didn’t preach about diversity. It just assumed it. And in doing so, it made a significant contribution to changing attitudes, in a way preaching never would have. Changing them on women in positions of authority. Changing them on race, and on minorities in positions of authority. And on and on.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen.
Nobody’s saying that progress wasn’t made regarding racism in recent decades. That’s why a majority of voters rejected Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it was not enough, and Republicans are pretending his policies are normal, when actually he represents Vladimir Putin and the white nationalist movement in this country. The fact that you, Marty and Republicans generally are ignoring this doesn’t put y’all in the “progress over the past 30 years” camp. It puts you on his side. Own it.
What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen.
Nobody’s saying that progress wasn’t made regarding racism in recent decades. That’s why a majority of voters rejected Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it was not enough, and Republicans are pretending his policies are normal, when actually he represents Vladimir Putin and the white nationalist movement in this country. The fact that you, Marty and Republicans generally are ignoring this doesn’t put y’all in the “progress over the past 30 years” camp. It puts you on his side. Own it.
What I’m not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn’t happen.
Nobody’s saying that progress wasn’t made regarding racism in recent decades. That’s why a majority of voters rejected Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it was not enough, and Republicans are pretending his policies are normal, when actually he represents Vladimir Putin and the white nationalist movement in this country. The fact that you, Marty and Republicans generally are ignoring this doesn’t put y’all in the “progress over the past 30 years” camp. It puts you on his side. Own it.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
Ummm, not when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
Ummm, not when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.
Ummm, not when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Not either/or, but both/and.
Racism is undoubtedly one of the factors. Banking and policing practices are also factors, and those exacerbate the problems related to race. Education funding is another and, again, it disproportionately affects minorities.
And racism is not always a matter of personal animus. How we frame problems of economics, education, and law enforcement in terms of personal choice and responsibility can be racist even when the individuals seeing the world through these frames have no ill feelings towards any individuals.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Not either/or, but both/and.
Racism is undoubtedly one of the factors. Banking and policing practices are also factors, and those exacerbate the problems related to race. Education funding is another and, again, it disproportionately affects minorities.
And racism is not always a matter of personal animus. How we frame problems of economics, education, and law enforcement in terms of personal choice and responsibility can be racist even when the individuals seeing the world through these frames have no ill feelings towards any individuals.
So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc’s post or something else?
Not either/or, but both/and.
Racism is undoubtedly one of the factors. Banking and policing practices are also factors, and those exacerbate the problems related to race. Education funding is another and, again, it disproportionately affects minorities.
And racism is not always a matter of personal animus. How we frame problems of economics, education, and law enforcement in terms of personal choice and responsibility can be racist even when the individuals seeing the world through these frames have no ill feelings towards any individuals.
Actually, I pretty much agree with wj at 12.57 too.
Actually, I pretty much agree with wj at 12.57 too.
Actually, I pretty much agree with wj at 12.57 too.
Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
Yes, it is more complicated. Those nasty SJWs have been saying so for a long time.
I just can’t… Like, I guess you’ve literally never bothered to try to understand how systemic racism works?
Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
Yes, it is more complicated. Those nasty SJWs have been saying so for a long time.
I just can’t… Like, I guess you’ve literally never bothered to try to understand how systemic racism works?
Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more complicated–is that even a remote possibility?
Yes, it is more complicated. Those nasty SJWs have been saying so for a long time.
I just can’t… Like, I guess you’ve literally never bothered to try to understand how systemic racism works?
But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening?
What if the shoe fits?
But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening?
What if the shoe fits?
But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening?
What if the shoe fits?
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
I took that quote to mean that the places that went most strongly for Trump are mostly the places that have been “cleansed.” They are bastions of whiteness, established years ago. I didn’t take it to mean that the people who voted for Trump did the cleansing, but that their worldview is informed in part by where they’ve lived (like everyone else, probably, just with different particulars).
And, to further some of the other comment, the fight against racism, bigotry, homophobia or whatever forms of discrimination will be never ending. There appears to be a propensity for these things that is a basic part of human nature. Some people accept and even embrace it. Some people fight against it. Others seem not to notice much.
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not. You choose.
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
I took that quote to mean that the places that went most strongly for Trump are mostly the places that have been “cleansed.” They are bastions of whiteness, established years ago. I didn’t take it to mean that the people who voted for Trump did the cleansing, but that their worldview is informed in part by where they’ve lived (like everyone else, probably, just with different particulars).
And, to further some of the other comment, the fight against racism, bigotry, homophobia or whatever forms of discrimination will be never ending. There appears to be a propensity for these things that is a basic part of human nature. Some people accept and even embrace it. Some people fight against it. Others seem not to notice much.
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not. You choose.
See my quote from the Doc’s post at 12:49.
I took that quote to mean that the places that went most strongly for Trump are mostly the places that have been “cleansed.” They are bastions of whiteness, established years ago. I didn’t take it to mean that the people who voted for Trump did the cleansing, but that their worldview is informed in part by where they’ve lived (like everyone else, probably, just with different particulars).
And, to further some of the other comment, the fight against racism, bigotry, homophobia or whatever forms of discrimination will be never ending. There appears to be a propensity for these things that is a basic part of human nature. Some people accept and even embrace it. Some people fight against it. Others seem not to notice much.
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not. You choose.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
The problem with this isn’t that you’re wrong per se, it’s that in Trumpistan, even calling it out when you see it is harping. As well as basically any other conversation about race, no matter how nuanced. (And furthermore, it’s the real racism!)
So, yeah, don’t harp, folks. But let’s not start up the circular firing squad yet either. An article about how the overtly racist policies of the past shaped the less visibly racist landscape of today is actually pretty far over on the ‘correct’ side of the harp/nuance spectrum.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
The problem with this isn’t that you’re wrong per se, it’s that in Trumpistan, even calling it out when you see it is harping. As well as basically any other conversation about race, no matter how nuanced. (And furthermore, it’s the real racism!)
So, yeah, don’t harp, folks. But let’s not start up the circular firing squad yet either. An article about how the overtly racist policies of the past shaped the less visibly racist landscape of today is actually pretty far over on the ‘correct’ side of the harp/nuance spectrum.
There is a reason not to “harp” on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.
The problem with this isn’t that you’re wrong per se, it’s that in Trumpistan, even calling it out when you see it is harping. As well as basically any other conversation about race, no matter how nuanced. (And furthermore, it’s the real racism!)
So, yeah, don’t harp, folks. But let’s not start up the circular firing squad yet either. An article about how the overtly racist policies of the past shaped the less visibly racist landscape of today is actually pretty far over on the ‘correct’ side of the harp/nuance spectrum.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I absolutely agree with this. I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I absolutely agree with this. I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
I absolutely agree with this. I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution? Which I raise not because I think you would propose that, nor because I think it might be anything but a disastrous failure. But because I think it would not be any less successful than anything I recall having seen you suggest so far.
when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution? Which I raise not because I think you would propose that, nor because I think it might be anything but a disastrous failure. But because I think it would not be any less successful than anything I recall having seen you suggest so far.
when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution? Which I raise not because I think you would propose that, nor because I think it might be anything but a disastrous failure. But because I think it would not be any less successful than anything I recall having seen you suggest so far.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
And yet this is probably small comfort to a young man named, say, DeShawn Brown who makes the mistake of the putting that name on his resume, and can’t understand (or, rather, understands all too well) why he never gets called for any interviews.
It’s absolutely true the racism used to be packed into that sandwich in great big, hard, highly visible logs. Now it’s just the more liquid kind, mixed in small quantities into the mayonnaise. Occasionally there’s a police bullet in there too.
This still isn’t so great.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
And yet this is probably small comfort to a young man named, say, DeShawn Brown who makes the mistake of the putting that name on his resume, and can’t understand (or, rather, understands all too well) why he never gets called for any interviews.
It’s absolutely true the racism used to be packed into that sandwich in great big, hard, highly visible logs. Now it’s just the more liquid kind, mixed in small quantities into the mayonnaise. Occasionally there’s a police bullet in there too.
This still isn’t so great.
Actually, there’s rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.
And yet this is probably small comfort to a young man named, say, DeShawn Brown who makes the mistake of the putting that name on his resume, and can’t understand (or, rather, understands all too well) why he never gets called for any interviews.
It’s absolutely true the racism used to be packed into that sandwich in great big, hard, highly visible logs. Now it’s just the more liquid kind, mixed in small quantities into the mayonnaise. Occasionally there’s a police bullet in there too.
This still isn’t so great.
I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
In fairness I think we should acknowledge that, inn some ways, we are worse off. At that time, we had a Republican President who would sent the US Army into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court ruling against racial discrimination. Followed by a Democratic administration which pushed thru the Civil Rights Act.
Today, we have one of the of major parties which would do neither. And as far as I can see, has zero national level leaders who would even consider suggesting that either might be (or might have been) a good idea and the right thing to do.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
In fairness I think we should acknowledge that, inn some ways, we are worse off. At that time, we had a Republican President who would sent the US Army into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court ruling against racial discrimination. Followed by a Democratic administration which pushed thru the Civil Rights Act.
Today, we have one of the of major parties which would do neither. And as far as I can see, has zero national level leaders who would even consider suggesting that either might be (or might have been) a good idea and the right thing to do.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
I can remember the early 60’s also, and even the late 1950’s. We are miles from there.
In fairness I think we should acknowledge that, inn some ways, we are worse off. At that time, we had a Republican President who would sent the US Army into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court ruling against racial discrimination. Followed by a Democratic administration which pushed thru the Civil Rights Act.
Today, we have one of the of major parties which would do neither. And as far as I can see, has zero national level leaders who would even consider suggesting that either might be (or might have been) a good idea and the right thing to do.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
Following up on my 1:07:
It seems as if McKinney and WJ are thinking the left sees racism as the underlying cause of our problems — that racial animus drives political choices in some manner.
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Big difference.
Following up on my 1:07:
It seems as if McKinney and WJ are thinking the left sees racism as the underlying cause of our problems — that racial animus drives political choices in some manner.
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Big difference.
Following up on my 1:07:
It seems as if McKinney and WJ are thinking the left sees racism as the underlying cause of our problems — that racial animus drives political choices in some manner.
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Big difference.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America.
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America.
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I’m calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America.
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
We’ve also gone backwards on policies like desegregating schools – the only policy that’s ever really been shown to work long term to improve outcomes for minority students.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
We’ve also gone backwards on policies like desegregating schools – the only policy that’s ever really been shown to work long term to improve outcomes for minority students.
So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.
We’ve also gone backwards on policies like desegregating schools – the only policy that’s ever really been shown to work long term to improve outcomes for minority students.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
I would suggest that “principled” Republicans (oxymoron) join Democrats in flooding the phones of Congress to reject these nominees. I’ve been making roughly a phone call every weekday since the election. Then they can report back here to let us all know how it went. Also, byomtov’s 11:55.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
I would suggest that “principled” Republicans (oxymoron) join Democrats in flooding the phones of Congress to reject these nominees. I’ve been making roughly a phone call every weekday since the election. Then they can report back here to let us all know how it went. Also, byomtov’s 11:55.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?
I would suggest that “principled” Republicans (oxymoron) join Democrats in flooding the phones of Congress to reject these nominees. I’ve been making roughly a phone call every weekday since the election. Then they can report back here to let us all know how it went. Also, byomtov’s 11:55.
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.)Or on the whole Trump administration?
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.)Or on the whole Trump administration?
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview
OK, trying to “get real.”
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.)Or on the whole Trump administration?
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
“>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5Us
It is constructive, and thanks for posting it. I’m on twitter and subscribe to Hilzoy’s feed, and she’s an inspiring resource.
I’d like to see some action on the part of Republicans who’ve claimed to oppose Trump and, before that, Cheney. If they don’t want to be called collaborators, what actions are they taking?
By the way, I’ve committed to an action a day, including making phone calls, looking into advocacy groups to join, and doing some other preparation which will help me to be more effective moving forward.
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
“>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5Us
It is constructive, and thanks for posting it. I’m on twitter and subscribe to Hilzoy’s feed, and she’s an inspiring resource.
I’d like to see some action on the part of Republicans who’ve claimed to oppose Trump and, before that, Cheney. If they don’t want to be called collaborators, what actions are they taking?
By the way, I’ve committed to an action a day, including making phone calls, looking into advocacy groups to join, and doing some other preparation which will help me to be more effective moving forward.
I’ve posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy’s twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:
“>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5Us
It is constructive, and thanks for posting it. I’m on twitter and subscribe to Hilzoy’s feed, and she’s an inspiring resource.
I’d like to see some action on the part of Republicans who’ve claimed to oppose Trump and, before that, Cheney. If they don’t want to be called collaborators, what actions are they taking?
By the way, I’ve committed to an action a day, including making phone calls, looking into advocacy groups to join, and doing some other preparation which will help me to be more effective moving forward.
I agree both with wj’s 12:57, and with sapient’s 1:06.
Racism is no longer countenanced as a de jure practice. That’s as of about 50 years ago. That’s a great thing.
Racism has become socially unacceptable, mostly. That’s probably as of about 40 years ago. Also a great thing.
Racism generally – perceiving and treating people differently because of the color of their skin – is, as far as I can tell, still an every day reality, everywhere in this country.
Do people cop morally superior attitudes about it? Yes they do. Do people overstate its prevalence and effect? Maybe, although I’m not so sure about that.
My operating assumption is that, if you live in the US, you respond to people with dark skin differently than you do to people who don’t have dark skin.
If that doesn’t describe you, you are an extraordinary person. It sure as hell describes me.
Viewing black people, specifically – people with discernable African heritage – differently than you view other people, consciously or not, is, as far as I can tell, baked into the experience of being American. Probably some other folks too, I’m just speaking for my own country.
When people say it’s not a factor, I just assume they’re living in a state of denial about it.
I’m not pointing fingers about it, because I think it’s basically universal. It’s nothing to be defensive about, neither is it anything to be all that judgemental about, because it infects us all.
Personally, I can say that I have ancestors who were slave owners, and quite recent forbears – people I knew, who were alive in my own lifetime – who participated in acts of terror toward black people and who kept black people’s body parts as trophies.
Most likely some other folks reading this have that same experience – on one side of it or the other – in their own family histories, whether they know it or not.
That – the weight of it, the emotional and psychic valence of it – is not something that just goes away after 50, or 75, or 100 years.
If you find all of this just too far out for words, I will re-direct your attention to sapient’s 1:06. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. For AG. WT bloody F. In my opinion, the man should not even be welcome in polite company.
We ain’t in the promised land quite yet.
That’s my take on the racism thing.
I agree both with wj’s 12:57, and with sapient’s 1:06.
Racism is no longer countenanced as a de jure practice. That’s as of about 50 years ago. That’s a great thing.
Racism has become socially unacceptable, mostly. That’s probably as of about 40 years ago. Also a great thing.
Racism generally – perceiving and treating people differently because of the color of their skin – is, as far as I can tell, still an every day reality, everywhere in this country.
Do people cop morally superior attitudes about it? Yes they do. Do people overstate its prevalence and effect? Maybe, although I’m not so sure about that.
My operating assumption is that, if you live in the US, you respond to people with dark skin differently than you do to people who don’t have dark skin.
If that doesn’t describe you, you are an extraordinary person. It sure as hell describes me.
Viewing black people, specifically – people with discernable African heritage – differently than you view other people, consciously or not, is, as far as I can tell, baked into the experience of being American. Probably some other folks too, I’m just speaking for my own country.
When people say it’s not a factor, I just assume they’re living in a state of denial about it.
I’m not pointing fingers about it, because I think it’s basically universal. It’s nothing to be defensive about, neither is it anything to be all that judgemental about, because it infects us all.
Personally, I can say that I have ancestors who were slave owners, and quite recent forbears – people I knew, who were alive in my own lifetime – who participated in acts of terror toward black people and who kept black people’s body parts as trophies.
Most likely some other folks reading this have that same experience – on one side of it or the other – in their own family histories, whether they know it or not.
That – the weight of it, the emotional and psychic valence of it – is not something that just goes away after 50, or 75, or 100 years.
If you find all of this just too far out for words, I will re-direct your attention to sapient’s 1:06. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. For AG. WT bloody F. In my opinion, the man should not even be welcome in polite company.
We ain’t in the promised land quite yet.
That’s my take on the racism thing.
I agree both with wj’s 12:57, and with sapient’s 1:06.
Racism is no longer countenanced as a de jure practice. That’s as of about 50 years ago. That’s a great thing.
Racism has become socially unacceptable, mostly. That’s probably as of about 40 years ago. Also a great thing.
Racism generally – perceiving and treating people differently because of the color of their skin – is, as far as I can tell, still an every day reality, everywhere in this country.
Do people cop morally superior attitudes about it? Yes they do. Do people overstate its prevalence and effect? Maybe, although I’m not so sure about that.
My operating assumption is that, if you live in the US, you respond to people with dark skin differently than you do to people who don’t have dark skin.
If that doesn’t describe you, you are an extraordinary person. It sure as hell describes me.
Viewing black people, specifically – people with discernable African heritage – differently than you view other people, consciously or not, is, as far as I can tell, baked into the experience of being American. Probably some other folks too, I’m just speaking for my own country.
When people say it’s not a factor, I just assume they’re living in a state of denial about it.
I’m not pointing fingers about it, because I think it’s basically universal. It’s nothing to be defensive about, neither is it anything to be all that judgemental about, because it infects us all.
Personally, I can say that I have ancestors who were slave owners, and quite recent forbears – people I knew, who were alive in my own lifetime – who participated in acts of terror toward black people and who kept black people’s body parts as trophies.
Most likely some other folks reading this have that same experience – on one side of it or the other – in their own family histories, whether they know it or not.
That – the weight of it, the emotional and psychic valence of it – is not something that just goes away after 50, or 75, or 100 years.
If you find all of this just too far out for words, I will re-direct your attention to sapient’s 1:06. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. For AG. WT bloody F. In my opinion, the man should not even be welcome in polite company.
We ain’t in the promised land quite yet.
That’s my take on the racism thing.
What in the world is absurd about that? It’s completely straightforward. The overt policies are gone, but the landscape they created obviously persists. The perspectives — and voting habits — of those who live in it can’t help but be shaped by that fact.
What in the world is absurd about that? It’s completely straightforward. The overt policies are gone, but the landscape they created obviously persists. The perspectives — and voting habits — of those who live in it can’t help but be shaped by that fact.
What in the world is absurd about that? It’s completely straightforward. The overt policies are gone, but the landscape they created obviously persists. The perspectives — and voting habits — of those who live in it can’t help but be shaped by that fact.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions?
Call your Senators and let them know you find him to be an unacceptable candidate for AG.
Or on the whole Trump administration?
Same advice.
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution?
Unlikely to be useful in countering any issue discussed on this thread.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions?
Call your Senators and let them know you find him to be an unacceptable candidate for AG.
Or on the whole Trump administration?
Same advice.
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution?
Unlikely to be useful in countering any issue discussed on this thread.
What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions?
Call your Senators and let them know you find him to be an unacceptable candidate for AG.
Or on the whole Trump administration?
Same advice.
Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution?
Unlikely to be useful in countering any issue discussed on this thread.
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not.
I agree with this, as a general statement of affairs, up to a point. I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then.
We will always have parents who want their children to marry within the tribe (race, religion, whatever), people who are more comfortable around others of the same hue or religion or political persuasion. That is not fixable nor in a free society is a fix desirable.
This:
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
And this:
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Are worthy topics on their own. And, yes, NV, I feel much better.
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not.
I agree with this, as a general statement of affairs, up to a point. I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then.
We will always have parents who want their children to marry within the tribe (race, religion, whatever), people who are more comfortable around others of the same hue or religion or political persuasion. That is not fixable nor in a free society is a fix desirable.
This:
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
And this:
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Are worthy topics on their own. And, yes, NV, I feel much better.
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don’t fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.
You can be on board with that or not.
I agree with this, as a general statement of affairs, up to a point. I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then.
We will always have parents who want their children to marry within the tribe (race, religion, whatever), people who are more comfortable around others of the same hue or religion or political persuasion. That is not fixable nor in a free society is a fix desirable.
This:
If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We’re not necessarily as noisy, though.
And this:
What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.
Are worthy topics on their own. And, yes, NV, I feel much better.
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
That is absolutely necessary for this fight. (By the way, I’m not advocating torturing our enemies.)
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
That is absolutely necessary for this fight. (By the way, I’m not advocating torturing our enemies.)
Aha, the old “if they’re not with us they’re against us” trope, eh?
That is absolutely necessary for this fight. (By the way, I’m not advocating torturing our enemies.)
I purchased a home in my town that was built in 1921 and I was flabbergasted by the racist exclusions language in the CCR’s. Don’t recall seeing the addendum pointing out that such restrictions were illegal . Later I purchased a home built in 1956 and although the CCR language may have been a bit more polite the exclusions were still there. The hood i live in now is smoothly diversified and It appears to work well from my perspective. Here in the city of Sacramento we have come along way since 1935. However most of the outer burbs remain pretty much lily white (with a sprinkle of asian). That was all built after 1970 so not sure how to blame sundown towns.
I purchased a home in my town that was built in 1921 and I was flabbergasted by the racist exclusions language in the CCR’s. Don’t recall seeing the addendum pointing out that such restrictions were illegal . Later I purchased a home built in 1956 and although the CCR language may have been a bit more polite the exclusions were still there. The hood i live in now is smoothly diversified and It appears to work well from my perspective. Here in the city of Sacramento we have come along way since 1935. However most of the outer burbs remain pretty much lily white (with a sprinkle of asian). That was all built after 1970 so not sure how to blame sundown towns.
I purchased a home in my town that was built in 1921 and I was flabbergasted by the racist exclusions language in the CCR’s. Don’t recall seeing the addendum pointing out that such restrictions were illegal . Later I purchased a home built in 1956 and although the CCR language may have been a bit more polite the exclusions were still there. The hood i live in now is smoothly diversified and It appears to work well from my perspective. Here in the city of Sacramento we have come along way since 1935. However most of the outer burbs remain pretty much lily white (with a sprinkle of asian). That was all built after 1970 so not sure how to blame sundown towns.
In all seriousness, sapient, I think that is profoundly mistaken. We (or at any rate the American people and their friends) are divided enough already, without forcing people into corners they didn’t choose. I can state it no better than wj did:
And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
In all seriousness, sapient, I think that is profoundly mistaken. We (or at any rate the American people and their friends) are divided enough already, without forcing people into corners they didn’t choose. I can state it no better than wj did:
And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
In all seriousness, sapient, I think that is profoundly mistaken. We (or at any rate the American people and their friends) are divided enough already, without forcing people into corners they didn’t choose. I can state it no better than wj did:
And however bad the pain, and I don’t discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job. I’ve posted a lot of support for my views over the years, including in this thread. People choose to ignore the truth. Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness, but somehow I think they’ll ignore all but the good will, and then they’ll that it to justify themselves.
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job. I’ve posted a lot of support for my views over the years, including in this thread. People choose to ignore the truth. Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness, but somehow I think they’ll ignore all but the good will, and then they’ll that it to justify themselves.
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job. I’ve posted a lot of support for my views over the years, including in this thread. People choose to ignore the truth. Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness, but somehow I think they’ll ignore all but the good will, and then they’ll that it to justify themselves.
Correction: They’ll use your goodwill to justify themselves.
Correction: They’ll use your goodwill to justify themselves.
Correction: They’ll use your goodwill to justify themselves.
People choose to ignore the truth.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
People choose to ignore the truth.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
People choose to ignore the truth.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job.
This is the job of everyone who wants to mitigate the disaster of a Trump presidency, and to avoid a second Trump term. “Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness” once more caricatures my/this approach: you have to understand your opponent, and then talk to him/her, in order to change attitudes and then decisions. You can ridicule this attitude as much as you like, but it was an important element in for example the South African situation: Nelson Mandela understood this, immersed himself (in prison) in understanding Afrikaner culture and mentality and, the importance of BDS notwithstanding, brought about a change that looked impossible without war and more violence.
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job.
This is the job of everyone who wants to mitigate the disaster of a Trump presidency, and to avoid a second Trump term. “Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness” once more caricatures my/this approach: you have to understand your opponent, and then talk to him/her, in order to change attitudes and then decisions. You can ridicule this attitude as much as you like, but it was an important element in for example the South African situation: Nelson Mandela understood this, immersed himself (in prison) in understanding Afrikaner culture and mentality and, the importance of BDS notwithstanding, brought about a change that looked impossible without war and more violence.
changing minds.
Perhaps that’s your job.
This is the job of everyone who wants to mitigate the disaster of a Trump presidency, and to avoid a second Trump term. “Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness” once more caricatures my/this approach: you have to understand your opponent, and then talk to him/her, in order to change attitudes and then decisions. You can ridicule this attitude as much as you like, but it was an important element in for example the South African situation: Nelson Mandela understood this, immersed himself (in prison) in understanding Afrikaner culture and mentality and, the importance of BDS notwithstanding, brought about a change that looked impossible without war and more violence.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
Deny the racism of having chosen Jeff Sessions, please, McKinney. Not a problem for you, apparently.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
Deny the racism of having chosen Jeff Sessions, please, McKinney. Not a problem for you, apparently.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
Deny the racism of having chosen Jeff Sessions, please, McKinney. Not a problem for you, apparently.
Well, you could make the argument that Sessions is more of a homophobe than a racist, so there’s that.
Well, you could make the argument that Sessions is more of a homophobe than a racist, so there’s that.
Well, you could make the argument that Sessions is more of a homophobe than a racist, so there’s that.
I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then…
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then…
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then…
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
For a look at what a positive call to resistance might look at, consider the speech California Governor Jerry Brown gave recently. The speech itself is worth listening to, but I’m linking to James Fallows commentary, with is both worth reading in its own right and has a link to Brown’s speech.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/12/this-is-what-the-resistance-sounds-like/510899/
For a look at what a positive call to resistance might look at, consider the speech California Governor Jerry Brown gave recently. The speech itself is worth listening to, but I’m linking to James Fallows commentary, with is both worth reading in its own right and has a link to Brown’s speech.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/12/this-is-what-the-resistance-sounds-like/510899/
For a look at what a positive call to resistance might look at, consider the speech California Governor Jerry Brown gave recently. The speech itself is worth listening to, but I’m linking to James Fallows commentary, with is both worth reading in its own right and has a link to Brown’s speech.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/12/this-is-what-the-resistance-sounds-like/510899/
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
Did I say that? Where?
Progress, in the generic, non-ideological sense, is seldom a flawlessly smooth process.
Further, as I’ve said before, Trump is in office in significant part because of the Dem’s substandard candidate. It is not a barometer of prevailing, and changing views on race.
Further still, you are conflating what regular people in general will think and do ten or twenty years with respect to others of different hues with an aberrational vote in an aberrational election last month. If your logic were sound, after 8 years of Obama, we’d all be singing Kumbaya.
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
Did I say that? Where?
Progress, in the generic, non-ideological sense, is seldom a flawlessly smooth process.
Further, as I’ve said before, Trump is in office in significant part because of the Dem’s substandard candidate. It is not a barometer of prevailing, and changing views on race.
Further still, you are conflating what regular people in general will think and do ten or twenty years with respect to others of different hues with an aberrational vote in an aberrational election last month. If your logic were sound, after 8 years of Obama, we’d all be singing Kumbaya.
And you regard the election of Trump as part of that ‘continued improvement’ ?
With respect, that’s more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.
Did I say that? Where?
Progress, in the generic, non-ideological sense, is seldom a flawlessly smooth process.
Further, as I’ve said before, Trump is in office in significant part because of the Dem’s substandard candidate. It is not a barometer of prevailing, and changing views on race.
Further still, you are conflating what regular people in general will think and do ten or twenty years with respect to others of different hues with an aberrational vote in an aberrational election last month. If your logic were sound, after 8 years of Obama, we’d all be singing Kumbaya.
OP quote:
“What does this mean for the election?
It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren’t welcome elsewhere.”
Oh, it is all about racism today.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination. We have red and blue districts because of white racism.
1) Randomly drop black individual all over the map and there will be areas without blacks, they will cluster.
2) But blacks will cluster, boo bob, sometimes I hear they form families even which makes the number of possible accidental red districts even higher.
3) Blacks do move, sometimes even for reasons other than racism. There are at least three migrations of blacks in American history, movements large enough to change demographics in areas significantly.
Blacks have agency, which your post largely denies. Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
Checking Nome Alaska. Less than 1% black, can we assume it is institutionally racist and actively discriminatory? Would enough Chicagoans move tomorrow to Nome if…I can’t imagine.
I come from one of the worst sundown towns you can imagine, but that was somewhat more than 20k within 5 miles of large black populations and 100% white for generations, and practiced real estate discrimination and did get sued. There are blacks living there now, although I am sure the politics is still red.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
OP quote:
“What does this mean for the election?
It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren’t welcome elsewhere.”
Oh, it is all about racism today.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination. We have red and blue districts because of white racism.
1) Randomly drop black individual all over the map and there will be areas without blacks, they will cluster.
2) But blacks will cluster, boo bob, sometimes I hear they form families even which makes the number of possible accidental red districts even higher.
3) Blacks do move, sometimes even for reasons other than racism. There are at least three migrations of blacks in American history, movements large enough to change demographics in areas significantly.
Blacks have agency, which your post largely denies. Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
Checking Nome Alaska. Less than 1% black, can we assume it is institutionally racist and actively discriminatory? Would enough Chicagoans move tomorrow to Nome if…I can’t imagine.
I come from one of the worst sundown towns you can imagine, but that was somewhat more than 20k within 5 miles of large black populations and 100% white for generations, and practiced real estate discrimination and did get sued. There are blacks living there now, although I am sure the politics is still red.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
OP quote:
“What does this mean for the election?
It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren’t welcome elsewhere.”
Oh, it is all about racism today.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination. We have red and blue districts because of white racism.
1) Randomly drop black individual all over the map and there will be areas without blacks, they will cluster.
2) But blacks will cluster, boo bob, sometimes I hear they form families even which makes the number of possible accidental red districts even higher.
3) Blacks do move, sometimes even for reasons other than racism. There are at least three migrations of blacks in American history, movements large enough to change demographics in areas significantly.
Blacks have agency, which your post largely denies. Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
Checking Nome Alaska. Less than 1% black, can we assume it is institutionally racist and actively discriminatory? Would enough Chicagoans move tomorrow to Nome if…I can’t imagine.
I come from one of the worst sundown towns you can imagine, but that was somewhat more than 20k within 5 miles of large black populations and 100% white for generations, and practiced real estate discrimination and did get sued. There are blacks living there now, although I am sure the politics is still red.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
Yep. Nicely put.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
Yep. Nicely put.
The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.
Yep. Nicely put.
Did I say that? Where?
Sauce for the goose, McT.
Did I say that? Where?
Sauce for the goose, McT.
Did I say that? Where?
Sauce for the goose, McT.
As I said I grew up in a Northern sundown town and moved to my current location near Dallas, where I have been for 35 years. My current town is majority-minority, now up around 70%, maybe 25% black.
I left the North because the factories were closing and I was tired of freezes in May. I moved to my current house from an inner ring because it was time to build a house, and this area was pretty cheap with good schools and services. I am guessing the blacks on my block or elsewhere moved for much the same reasons.
It was like 40% of steelworkers and 30% of autoworkers were black. What did you expect them to do when the factories closed? Why not come on down to Texas, and if that meant that given Michigan districts got hollowed out of blacks, does that mean that district became racist.
The biggest and best explanation of why the US is divided coastal-rural, or urban-rural, is that is where the goodpaying jobs are.
Of course everything interests, and I am not saying that a red politics historical racist area is not still racist.
Why don’t the rural whites in Wisconsin also move to LA or Dallas? Some do, but yes, we have towns like mine around that are majority-minority and provide some kinds of support. Do rural Northen whites have something here to move to. Maybe? Something to study.
But my majority-minority town had to come from somewhere, and that places or places will likely be whiter than before.
As I said I grew up in a Northern sundown town and moved to my current location near Dallas, where I have been for 35 years. My current town is majority-minority, now up around 70%, maybe 25% black.
I left the North because the factories were closing and I was tired of freezes in May. I moved to my current house from an inner ring because it was time to build a house, and this area was pretty cheap with good schools and services. I am guessing the blacks on my block or elsewhere moved for much the same reasons.
It was like 40% of steelworkers and 30% of autoworkers were black. What did you expect them to do when the factories closed? Why not come on down to Texas, and if that meant that given Michigan districts got hollowed out of blacks, does that mean that district became racist.
The biggest and best explanation of why the US is divided coastal-rural, or urban-rural, is that is where the goodpaying jobs are.
Of course everything interests, and I am not saying that a red politics historical racist area is not still racist.
Why don’t the rural whites in Wisconsin also move to LA or Dallas? Some do, but yes, we have towns like mine around that are majority-minority and provide some kinds of support. Do rural Northen whites have something here to move to. Maybe? Something to study.
But my majority-minority town had to come from somewhere, and that places or places will likely be whiter than before.
As I said I grew up in a Northern sundown town and moved to my current location near Dallas, where I have been for 35 years. My current town is majority-minority, now up around 70%, maybe 25% black.
I left the North because the factories were closing and I was tired of freezes in May. I moved to my current house from an inner ring because it was time to build a house, and this area was pretty cheap with good schools and services. I am guessing the blacks on my block or elsewhere moved for much the same reasons.
It was like 40% of steelworkers and 30% of autoworkers were black. What did you expect them to do when the factories closed? Why not come on down to Texas, and if that meant that given Michigan districts got hollowed out of blacks, does that mean that district became racist.
The biggest and best explanation of why the US is divided coastal-rural, or urban-rural, is that is where the goodpaying jobs are.
Of course everything interests, and I am not saying that a red politics historical racist area is not still racist.
Why don’t the rural whites in Wisconsin also move to LA or Dallas? Some do, but yes, we have towns like mine around that are majority-minority and provide some kinds of support. Do rural Northen whites have something here to move to. Maybe? Something to study.
But my majority-minority town had to come from somewhere, and that places or places will likely be whiter than before.
“even in the North and West”
I don’t have much to say about this. There certainly were lots of sundown towns, then there was a greater deal of white flight where the second black family in town would increase the for sale sign business substantially, and then there was the development of the primarily black suburb as black people decided they would like to live in a nice suburb but would prefer a primarily black neighborhood. All ways that contribute(d) to lily white neighborhoods.
Even in the North and West
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
Sorry just hits my funny bone every time I read through the post.
“even in the North and West”
I don’t have much to say about this. There certainly were lots of sundown towns, then there was a greater deal of white flight where the second black family in town would increase the for sale sign business substantially, and then there was the development of the primarily black suburb as black people decided they would like to live in a nice suburb but would prefer a primarily black neighborhood. All ways that contribute(d) to lily white neighborhoods.
Even in the North and West
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
Sorry just hits my funny bone every time I read through the post.
“even in the North and West”
I don’t have much to say about this. There certainly were lots of sundown towns, then there was a greater deal of white flight where the second black family in town would increase the for sale sign business substantially, and then there was the development of the primarily black suburb as black people decided they would like to live in a nice suburb but would prefer a primarily black neighborhood. All ways that contribute(d) to lily white neighborhoods.
Even in the North and West
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
Sorry just hits my funny bone every time I read through the post.
Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
This depends entirely on the frequency with which people move/diffuse. I don’t think they move as fast as is required by your argument.
Because people DO cluster, that part is true. But those clusters are persistent. The more people end up in a place, and the longer they stay there, the more culturally appropriate institutions and infrastructure is going to get built up around them. The more adapted and comfortable a place becomes, the more the tendency toward general diffusion is markedly reduced.
People aren’t gas molecules. They stick together more. In, you know, communities.
But you can come along and stir them up. That’s what the sundown laws did, and other things. Their existence is a historical fact.
And so people were forced to go off and make new clusters. Elsewhere. And there they tended to stay.
Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
This depends entirely on the frequency with which people move/diffuse. I don’t think they move as fast as is required by your argument.
Because people DO cluster, that part is true. But those clusters are persistent. The more people end up in a place, and the longer they stay there, the more culturally appropriate institutions and infrastructure is going to get built up around them. The more adapted and comfortable a place becomes, the more the tendency toward general diffusion is markedly reduced.
People aren’t gas molecules. They stick together more. In, you know, communities.
But you can come along and stir them up. That’s what the sundown laws did, and other things. Their existence is a historical fact.
And so people were forced to go off and make new clusters. Elsewhere. And there they tended to stay.
Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.
This depends entirely on the frequency with which people move/diffuse. I don’t think they move as fast as is required by your argument.
Because people DO cluster, that part is true. But those clusters are persistent. The more people end up in a place, and the longer they stay there, the more culturally appropriate institutions and infrastructure is going to get built up around them. The more adapted and comfortable a place becomes, the more the tendency toward general diffusion is markedly reduced.
People aren’t gas molecules. They stick together more. In, you know, communities.
But you can come along and stir them up. That’s what the sundown laws did, and other things. Their existence is a historical fact.
And so people were forced to go off and make new clusters. Elsewhere. And there they tended to stay.
Sorry for not being briefer.
I understand all the intersections, like the cutting of social policies in Red States being maybe connected to racism.
But damn, Texas has some gawdawful social policies and has attracted enough to become majority-minority, well over 53%. Black population stable for forty years. But you know, not the same blacks in the same places as 1970.
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become.
Right at the start. This will not help.
(Bill Bishop’s Big Sort is a must read. No the discrimination and separation was not one-sided, with simple motives. Certain people, certain kinds of people moved to the coasts in droves, especially since 2000)
Sorry for not being briefer.
I understand all the intersections, like the cutting of social policies in Red States being maybe connected to racism.
But damn, Texas has some gawdawful social policies and has attracted enough to become majority-minority, well over 53%. Black population stable for forty years. But you know, not the same blacks in the same places as 1970.
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become.
Right at the start. This will not help.
(Bill Bishop’s Big Sort is a must read. No the discrimination and separation was not one-sided, with simple motives. Certain people, certain kinds of people moved to the coasts in droves, especially since 2000)
Sorry for not being briefer.
I understand all the intersections, like the cutting of social policies in Red States being maybe connected to racism.
But damn, Texas has some gawdawful social policies and has attracted enough to become majority-minority, well over 53%. Black population stable for forty years. But you know, not the same blacks in the same places as 1970.
Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become.
Right at the start. This will not help.
(Bill Bishop’s Big Sort is a must read. No the discrimination and separation was not one-sided, with simple motives. Certain people, certain kinds of people moved to the coasts in droves, especially since 2000)
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
There used to be fewer lily-white places in the North and West, which might surprise people who assumed black people generally left the South to head north and west – and not to then leave some of those destinations in the north and west. The “even” means that it wasn’t just the South blacks had left from, only to stay wherever it was they went, generally speaking, as many people might otherwise assume.
You (or people generally) would expect fewer lily-white places to have existed in the South before blacks left in large numbers.
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
There used to be fewer lily-white places in the North and West, which might surprise people who assumed black people generally left the South to head north and west – and not to then leave some of those destinations in the north and west. The “even” means that it wasn’t just the South blacks had left from, only to stay wherever it was they went, generally speaking, as many people might otherwise assume.
You (or people generally) would expect fewer lily-white places to have existed in the South before blacks left in large numbers.
Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?
There used to be fewer lily-white places in the North and West, which might surprise people who assumed black people generally left the South to head north and west – and not to then leave some of those destinations in the north and west. The “even” means that it wasn’t just the South blacks had left from, only to stay wherever it was they went, generally speaking, as many people might otherwise assume.
You (or people generally) would expect fewer lily-white places to have existed in the South before blacks left in large numbers.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination.
I’m not seeing that in the original post at all. What was said, rather explicitly, is that areas with no blacks today were that way because of sundown practices in the past. The results linger, even if the practices have gone.
Not to say, nor did the original post say, that there are not places which still have those practices. Just that there was no suggestion in the OP that they were universal.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination.
I’m not seeing that in the original post at all. What was said, rather explicitly, is that areas with no blacks today were that way because of sundown practices in the past. The results linger, even if the practices have gone.
Not to say, nor did the original post say, that there are not places which still have those practices. Just that there was no suggestion in the OP that they were universal.
You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination.
I’m not seeing that in the original post at all. What was said, rather explicitly, is that areas with no blacks today were that way because of sundown practices in the past. The results linger, even if the practices have gone.
Not to say, nor did the original post say, that there are not places which still have those practices. Just that there was no suggestion in the OP that they were universal.
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
Here is a census map of the black population in the US.
There are some areas – the black belt notably – where the blue spots on Doc S’s map coincide with a significant black population.
There are lots of other areas where they don’t. Like, New England, and the south-west.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
1. Conservatives are racist.
2. Racism is no longer a problem.
I don’t think either of these points of view does justice to the reality.
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
Here is a census map of the black population in the US.
There are some areas – the black belt notably – where the blue spots on Doc S’s map coincide with a significant black population.
There are lots of other areas where they don’t. Like, New England, and the south-west.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
1. Conservatives are racist.
2. Racism is no longer a problem.
I don’t think either of these points of view does justice to the reality.
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
Here is a census map of the black population in the US.
There are some areas – the black belt notably – where the blue spots on Doc S’s map coincide with a significant black population.
There are lots of other areas where they don’t. Like, New England, and the south-west.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
1. Conservatives are racist.
2. Racism is no longer a problem.
I don’t think either of these points of view does justice to the reality.
Russell, I agree that reality does not fit that binary distinction. And the first place it goes wrong is the assumption in the first item that whites are the only conservatives.
It tends to be true that, overwhelmingly, mostly whites are Republicans these days. Certainly with some highly visible exceptions, but mostly. However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
Russell, I agree that reality does not fit that binary distinction. And the first place it goes wrong is the assumption in the first item that whites are the only conservatives.
It tends to be true that, overwhelmingly, mostly whites are Republicans these days. Certainly with some highly visible exceptions, but mostly. However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
Russell, I agree that reality does not fit that binary distinction. And the first place it goes wrong is the assumption in the first item that whites are the only conservatives.
It tends to be true that, overwhelmingly, mostly whites are Republicans these days. Certainly with some highly visible exceptions, but mostly. However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
So you don’t think blacks and Hispanics can be racist. (I’m kidding – sort of, anyway.)
So you don’t think blacks and Hispanics can be racist. (I’m kidding – sort of, anyway.)
So you don’t think blacks and Hispanics can be racist. (I’m kidding – sort of, anyway.)
I purchased a home built in 1921 and was totally shocked by the racist exclusionary language that was in the CCRs.
found this article to be interesting for history data nerds :
https://priceonomics.com/the-great-migration-the-african-american-exodus/
I purchased a home built in 1921 and was totally shocked by the racist exclusionary language that was in the CCRs.
found this article to be interesting for history data nerds :
https://priceonomics.com/the-great-migration-the-african-american-exodus/
I purchased a home built in 1921 and was totally shocked by the racist exclusionary language that was in the CCRs.
found this article to be interesting for history data nerds :
https://priceonomics.com/the-great-migration-the-african-american-exodus/
However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
That’s my observation also.
I’m not particularly interested in doing things that improve (R) outcomes, but as a party they definitely seem to be leaving a lot of votes on the table.
As far as the black community goes, specifically, if they had any sense they’d be reaching out to the churches. Not with the message they usually project, which is “What the hell is wrong with you people, you should be voting for us!”. But with some humility and an openness to hearing how they are seen by blacks any why, and a willingness to roll up their sleeves and actually do things that will help that community.
The RNC can forward a consultant’s fee to me via the kitty.
In any case, nominating a guy like Trump does not help them, nor does putting a guy like Sessions forward for AG.
However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
That’s my observation also.
I’m not particularly interested in doing things that improve (R) outcomes, but as a party they definitely seem to be leaving a lot of votes on the table.
As far as the black community goes, specifically, if they had any sense they’d be reaching out to the churches. Not with the message they usually project, which is “What the hell is wrong with you people, you should be voting for us!”. But with some humility and an openness to hearing how they are seen by blacks any why, and a willingness to roll up their sleeves and actually do things that will help that community.
The RNC can forward a consultant’s fee to me via the kitty.
In any case, nominating a guy like Trump does not help them, nor does putting a guy like Sessions forward for AG.
However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.
That’s my observation also.
I’m not particularly interested in doing things that improve (R) outcomes, but as a party they definitely seem to be leaving a lot of votes on the table.
As far as the black community goes, specifically, if they had any sense they’d be reaching out to the churches. Not with the message they usually project, which is “What the hell is wrong with you people, you should be voting for us!”. But with some humility and an openness to hearing how they are seen by blacks any why, and a willingness to roll up their sleeves and actually do things that will help that community.
The RNC can forward a consultant’s fee to me via the kitty.
In any case, nominating a guy like Trump does not help them, nor does putting a guy like Sessions forward for AG.
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
I don’t know why that should be a problem. There obviously isn’t any one factor underlying all of this. It’s a layering.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
It’s tough to have a discussion of race in the US.
About the best you can hope for is sort of a 90s sitcom PSA level of pablum. “Racism is bad.” And, leaving aside some reddit commentators with Pepe the frog avatars or whatever, everyone does seem to agree on that these days. They just don’t agree on what racism is. Or where it is. Or isn’t. Or how it works. Or what it does.
And of course, AFAICT, white fragility is really a thing. Not just for conservatives. For white people.
So if you try to have a nuanced discussion about something that tries to do justice to the reality, it…doesn’t work. At least not outside of specialized fora.
A: “Hey, what is up with the rates of black vs. white imprisonment, huh? This isn’t how it should be, right?”
B: “What are you talking about? Those people are obviously criminals. Are you saying they aren’t? They need to take personal responsibility. Their communities just don’t respect law and order. Anyway, there’s no racism anymore, because Obama.”
A: “…whu?”
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
I don’t know why that should be a problem. There obviously isn’t any one factor underlying all of this. It’s a layering.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
It’s tough to have a discussion of race in the US.
About the best you can hope for is sort of a 90s sitcom PSA level of pablum. “Racism is bad.” And, leaving aside some reddit commentators with Pepe the frog avatars or whatever, everyone does seem to agree on that these days. They just don’t agree on what racism is. Or where it is. Or isn’t. Or how it works. Or what it does.
And of course, AFAICT, white fragility is really a thing. Not just for conservatives. For white people.
So if you try to have a nuanced discussion about something that tries to do justice to the reality, it…doesn’t work. At least not outside of specialized fora.
A: “Hey, what is up with the rates of black vs. white imprisonment, huh? This isn’t how it should be, right?”
B: “What are you talking about? Those people are obviously criminals. Are you saying they aren’t? They need to take personal responsibility. Their communities just don’t respect law and order. Anyway, there’s no racism anymore, because Obama.”
A: “…whu?”
My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I’m not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.
I don’t know why that should be a problem. There obviously isn’t any one factor underlying all of this. It’s a layering.
The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.
It’s tough to have a discussion of race in the US.
About the best you can hope for is sort of a 90s sitcom PSA level of pablum. “Racism is bad.” And, leaving aside some reddit commentators with Pepe the frog avatars or whatever, everyone does seem to agree on that these days. They just don’t agree on what racism is. Or where it is. Or isn’t. Or how it works. Or what it does.
And of course, AFAICT, white fragility is really a thing. Not just for conservatives. For white people.
So if you try to have a nuanced discussion about something that tries to do justice to the reality, it…doesn’t work. At least not outside of specialized fora.
A: “Hey, what is up with the rates of black vs. white imprisonment, huh? This isn’t how it should be, right?”
B: “What are you talking about? Those people are obviously criminals. Are you saying they aren’t? They need to take personal responsibility. Their communities just don’t respect law and order. Anyway, there’s no racism anymore, because Obama.”
A: “…whu?”
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
Yeah. My biggest obstacle to following through with that remains me, though. The joys of depression and anxiety – which yes, would be a lot less significant if I had a clear, fixed goal I was in the process of working towards and momentum built up behind me, sigh. That little bit of self-awareness is more frustrating than useful, but it does promise that if I can get past a handful of foundational obstacles, I’ll like as not be able to persevere. I have a fairly clear outline of what I need to do to get the process back on track, and I can still hit rolling application deadlines for next fall if I’m more concerned with competence and completion than pedigree (if I want pedigree, then I’d need to look to fall ’18 at this point; I’d probably also want to retake my I-didn’t-really-study-for-this 160 LSAT after spending the spring practicing doing the problem solving portion quickly, but if I can stand to go to school in the awful climates of OH or PA, that’s passable even if far from ideal).
Kinda leaning more towards advocacy than tech/IP at this point, but that may have been the electoral cycle ramping up my martyr’s complex.
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
Yeah. My biggest obstacle to following through with that remains me, though. The joys of depression and anxiety – which yes, would be a lot less significant if I had a clear, fixed goal I was in the process of working towards and momentum built up behind me, sigh. That little bit of self-awareness is more frustrating than useful, but it does promise that if I can get past a handful of foundational obstacles, I’ll like as not be able to persevere. I have a fairly clear outline of what I need to do to get the process back on track, and I can still hit rolling application deadlines for next fall if I’m more concerned with competence and completion than pedigree (if I want pedigree, then I’d need to look to fall ’18 at this point; I’d probably also want to retake my I-didn’t-really-study-for-this 160 LSAT after spending the spring practicing doing the problem solving portion quickly, but if I can stand to go to school in the awful climates of OH or PA, that’s passable even if far from ideal).
Kinda leaning more towards advocacy than tech/IP at this point, but that may have been the electoral cycle ramping up my martyr’s complex.
Personal question: you still thinking about law school?
Yeah. My biggest obstacle to following through with that remains me, though. The joys of depression and anxiety – which yes, would be a lot less significant if I had a clear, fixed goal I was in the process of working towards and momentum built up behind me, sigh. That little bit of self-awareness is more frustrating than useful, but it does promise that if I can get past a handful of foundational obstacles, I’ll like as not be able to persevere. I have a fairly clear outline of what I need to do to get the process back on track, and I can still hit rolling application deadlines for next fall if I’m more concerned with competence and completion than pedigree (if I want pedigree, then I’d need to look to fall ’18 at this point; I’d probably also want to retake my I-didn’t-really-study-for-this 160 LSAT after spending the spring practicing doing the problem solving portion quickly, but if I can stand to go to school in the awful climates of OH or PA, that’s passable even if far from ideal).
Kinda leaning more towards advocacy than tech/IP at this point, but that may have been the electoral cycle ramping up my martyr’s complex.
“I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion”
yeah, but that’s Coates, so obviously it’s crap
“I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion”
yeah, but that’s Coates, so obviously it’s crap
“I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion”
yeah, but that’s Coates, so obviously it’s crap
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
It’s also about how one of the reasons he was able to get as far as he did was that his own idiosyncratic upbringing protected him a little bit from the kinds of scars the more mainstream black experience leaves. (Less charitably: he’s a little out of touch with that experience. TNC mentions this feeling a few times.)
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
It’s also about how one of the reasons he was able to get as far as he did was that his own idiosyncratic upbringing protected him a little bit from the kinds of scars the more mainstream black experience leaves. (Less charitably: he’s a little out of touch with that experience. TNC mentions this feeling a few times.)
I’ve posted this before, but it’s a pretty nuanced discussion:
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
It’s also about how one of the reasons he was able to get as far as he did was that his own idiosyncratic upbringing protected him a little bit from the kinds of scars the more mainstream black experience leaves. (Less charitably: he’s a little out of touch with that experience. TNC mentions this feeling a few times.)
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
But this is the whole problem with the “civil discussion”, “aren’t McKinney and Marty nice”, “we are all rational, and minds can be changed” narrative.
It’s not true. These people aren’t rational. We weren’t going to appeal to Nazis with “please?”. They have, like it or not, embraced a man who is embarrassingly crude, but also cruel. He’s a wife abuser, and he’s nominated a whole bunch of other ones.
And McKinney is still all about “HRC”. McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right), so he can come here and ask GftNC to “understand” him. Well, McKinney, I understand you all too well.
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
But this is the whole problem with the “civil discussion”, “aren’t McKinney and Marty nice”, “we are all rational, and minds can be changed” narrative.
It’s not true. These people aren’t rational. We weren’t going to appeal to Nazis with “please?”. They have, like it or not, embraced a man who is embarrassingly crude, but also cruel. He’s a wife abuser, and he’s nominated a whole bunch of other ones.
And McKinney is still all about “HRC”. McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right), so he can come here and ask GftNC to “understand” him. Well, McKinney, I understand you all too well.
And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn’t manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.
But this is the whole problem with the “civil discussion”, “aren’t McKinney and Marty nice”, “we are all rational, and minds can be changed” narrative.
It’s not true. These people aren’t rational. We weren’t going to appeal to Nazis with “please?”. They have, like it or not, embraced a man who is embarrassingly crude, but also cruel. He’s a wife abuser, and he’s nominated a whole bunch of other ones.
And McKinney is still all about “HRC”. McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right), so he can come here and ask GftNC to “understand” him. Well, McKinney, I understand you all too well.
Just to broaden the discussion of what to gather from an election map:
Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results at U Michigan.
Compare the map linked here and the purple map and cartogram that adjust for the percentage by which a given county went to either candidate.
The unforgiving binaries that drive election results (and red/blue Maps) in the US would be a lot less scary and divisive if the results were calculated by a proportional mechanism and not winner take all.
Just to broaden the discussion of what to gather from an election map:
Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results at U Michigan.
Compare the map linked here and the purple map and cartogram that adjust for the percentage by which a given county went to either candidate.
The unforgiving binaries that drive election results (and red/blue Maps) in the US would be a lot less scary and divisive if the results were calculated by a proportional mechanism and not winner take all.
Just to broaden the discussion of what to gather from an election map:
Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results at U Michigan.
Compare the map linked here and the purple map and cartogram that adjust for the percentage by which a given county went to either candidate.
The unforgiving binaries that drive election results (and red/blue Maps) in the US would be a lot less scary and divisive if the results were calculated by a proportional mechanism and not winner take all.
sapient, please dial back the personal remarks. Not helpful, also it makes me cranky and you wouldn’t like me when I’m cranky.
sapient, please dial back the personal remarks. Not helpful, also it makes me cranky and you wouldn’t like me when I’m cranky.
sapient, please dial back the personal remarks. Not helpful, also it makes me cranky and you wouldn’t like me when I’m cranky.
McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right)
Getting a bit too close to a personal attack on someone merely for disagreeing with you. Time to take a break for a while, sapient.
McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right)
Getting a bit too close to a personal attack on someone merely for disagreeing with you. Time to take a break for a while, sapient.
McKinney is a fraud. He “didn’t vote” for Trump (yeah, right)
Getting a bit too close to a personal attack on someone merely for disagreeing with you. Time to take a break for a while, sapient.
I share much of your frustration, but “not rational”, “nazis”, and “fraud” are probably several steps too far.
Maybe time to take a break? I’m not talking about banning, I’m just talking about walk away for a bit.
Marty and McK are not Nazis, and have earned and deserve an assumption of good faith.
I share much of your frustration, but “not rational”, “nazis”, and “fraud” are probably several steps too far.
Maybe time to take a break? I’m not talking about banning, I’m just talking about walk away for a bit.
Marty and McK are not Nazis, and have earned and deserve an assumption of good faith.
I share much of your frustration, but “not rational”, “nazis”, and “fraud” are probably several steps too far.
Maybe time to take a break? I’m not talking about banning, I’m just talking about walk away for a bit.
Marty and McK are not Nazis, and have earned and deserve an assumption of good faith.
Okay, I’m gone. Please let me know when I can tell the truth about people who are basically Vichy. I’ll leave until I’m invited back.
In the meantime, please read the many, various articles I’ve posted by completely run of the mill folks, who are very, very worried.
Okay, I’m gone. Please let me know when I can tell the truth about people who are basically Vichy. I’ll leave until I’m invited back.
In the meantime, please read the many, various articles I’ve posted by completely run of the mill folks, who are very, very worried.
Okay, I’m gone. Please let me know when I can tell the truth about people who are basically Vichy. I’ll leave until I’m invited back.
In the meantime, please read the many, various articles I’ve posted by completely run of the mill folks, who are very, very worried.
As tedious as I find him, I read the TNC link.
I just don’t understand how it was a nuanced discussion of anything. It was a story of the Presidents view of the world sprinkled with the standard litany of TNC complaints. Black people despise and fear white people, they have every reason to, in fact they are taught to as children, they bear no responsibility for the state of race relations, and the white people should give them money.
So, I would be curious to hear what it was a nuanced discussion of?
As tedious as I find him, I read the TNC link.
I just don’t understand how it was a nuanced discussion of anything. It was a story of the Presidents view of the world sprinkled with the standard litany of TNC complaints. Black people despise and fear white people, they have every reason to, in fact they are taught to as children, they bear no responsibility for the state of race relations, and the white people should give them money.
So, I would be curious to hear what it was a nuanced discussion of?
As tedious as I find him, I read the TNC link.
I just don’t understand how it was a nuanced discussion of anything. It was a story of the Presidents view of the world sprinkled with the standard litany of TNC complaints. Black people despise and fear white people, they have every reason to, in fact they are taught to as children, they bear no responsibility for the state of race relations, and the white people should give them money.
So, I would be curious to hear what it was a nuanced discussion of?
QED
QED
QED
I just read the TNC piece, and am feeling even more upset and depressed about the future, and about what America has lost.
sapient, we (which is to say people, not ObWi people) are not all rational, but minds can be changed. HRC was not a perfect candidate; Marty and McKinney are not Nazis or frauds; and McKinney did not ask me to “understand” him. Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness. Above all, we must not become like our enemies, and we do that by demonising people just because they disagree with us. Rest and recover, and come back soon.
I just read the TNC piece, and am feeling even more upset and depressed about the future, and about what America has lost.
sapient, we (which is to say people, not ObWi people) are not all rational, but minds can be changed. HRC was not a perfect candidate; Marty and McKinney are not Nazis or frauds; and McKinney did not ask me to “understand” him. Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness. Above all, we must not become like our enemies, and we do that by demonising people just because they disagree with us. Rest and recover, and come back soon.
I just read the TNC piece, and am feeling even more upset and depressed about the future, and about what America has lost.
sapient, we (which is to say people, not ObWi people) are not all rational, but minds can be changed. HRC was not a perfect candidate; Marty and McKinney are not Nazis or frauds; and McKinney did not ask me to “understand” him. Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness. Above all, we must not become like our enemies, and we do that by demonising people just because they disagree with us. Rest and recover, and come back soon.
Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness.
I promise to leave after this.
I don’t believe in unredeemable people. I’m not saying that anyone here or elsewhere is going to that dark place. But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover. So far, I haven’t seen it. And people are “cranky” about me? I am cranky about them.
Please show some support for me. I’m not the one who needs to reflect. I’ll come back when I see that you agree.
Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness.
I promise to leave after this.
I don’t believe in unredeemable people. I’m not saying that anyone here or elsewhere is going to that dark place. But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover. So far, I haven’t seen it. And people are “cranky” about me? I am cranky about them.
Please show some support for me. I’m not the one who needs to reflect. I’ll come back when I see that you agree.
Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness.
I promise to leave after this.
I don’t believe in unredeemable people. I’m not saying that anyone here or elsewhere is going to that dark place. But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover. So far, I haven’t seen it. And people are “cranky” about me? I am cranky about them.
Please show some support for me. I’m not the one who needs to reflect. I’ll come back when I see that you agree.
NV–on my damn iPhone. Will circle back later. Anxiety and depression are occupational hazards if not features. Consider law school in a warmer clime. Trial work is stressful. More later.
NV–on my damn iPhone. Will circle back later. Anxiety and depression are occupational hazards if not features. Consider law school in a warmer clime. Trial work is stressful. More later.
NV–on my damn iPhone. Will circle back later. Anxiety and depression are occupational hazards if not features. Consider law school in a warmer clime. Trial work is stressful. More later.
McKinney to the rescue. Go for the Oil, NV!
McKinney to the rescue. Go for the Oil, NV!
McKinney to the rescue. Go for the Oil, NV!
On the offchance you are still reading this:
I feel nothing but support for you. I have said many times that I admired your unremitting work for HRC, and I wish you and people like you had prevailed. You were and are one of the good guys. But I think your rage and despair, extremely understandable though they are, have been leading you astray since the election. There are ordinary bastards, and evil bastards, who will soon have power and need to be opposed. Nobody on this site is among them, and although we have the odd rightwinger, not a one of them (despite your baseless insinuations) is a Trump supporter. The rightwingers here may be inclined to be more hopeful than most of us are that the coming administration will be something not much different than a common-or-garden Republican one, but that is only to be expected. I hope they are right, but fear they will soon be proved wrong, as the appointees so far seem to indicate. None of this justifies accusations that our rightwing posters are fascists, and I’m hoping that when you’ve had time to recover you’ll see that too.
On the offchance you are still reading this:
I feel nothing but support for you. I have said many times that I admired your unremitting work for HRC, and I wish you and people like you had prevailed. You were and are one of the good guys. But I think your rage and despair, extremely understandable though they are, have been leading you astray since the election. There are ordinary bastards, and evil bastards, who will soon have power and need to be opposed. Nobody on this site is among them, and although we have the odd rightwinger, not a one of them (despite your baseless insinuations) is a Trump supporter. The rightwingers here may be inclined to be more hopeful than most of us are that the coming administration will be something not much different than a common-or-garden Republican one, but that is only to be expected. I hope they are right, but fear they will soon be proved wrong, as the appointees so far seem to indicate. None of this justifies accusations that our rightwing posters are fascists, and I’m hoping that when you’ve had time to recover you’ll see that too.
On the offchance you are still reading this:
I feel nothing but support for you. I have said many times that I admired your unremitting work for HRC, and I wish you and people like you had prevailed. You were and are one of the good guys. But I think your rage and despair, extremely understandable though they are, have been leading you astray since the election. There are ordinary bastards, and evil bastards, who will soon have power and need to be opposed. Nobody on this site is among them, and although we have the odd rightwinger, not a one of them (despite your baseless insinuations) is a Trump supporter. The rightwingers here may be inclined to be more hopeful than most of us are that the coming administration will be something not much different than a common-or-garden Republican one, but that is only to be expected. I hope they are right, but fear they will soon be proved wrong, as the appointees so far seem to indicate. None of this justifies accusations that our rightwing posters are fascists, and I’m hoping that when you’ve had time to recover you’ll see that too.
sorry, now off.
sorry, now off.
sorry, now off.
But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover.
This is generally where I am at also.
There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.
President-elect Trump has been a crap-show. There is no reason to think that President Trump will be any different.
I agree that reflection is in order, for a lot of people. I do not expect to see it. I’m not really addressing that to McK or Marty in particular, it’s just the reality of the moment.
As far as Coates goes, the man is a thoughtful and excellent writer. The things he says are not very different from things said by the likes of James Baldwin, or Richard Wright, or WEB Du Bois, or any number of people who have documented the experience of being black in America.
If what he says doesn’t suit you, don’t read him. But as far as I can tell, he’s just sharing his experience and understanding, as a black man living in the US. And on any kind of matter of historical fact, he does his freaking homework.
And that’s all I have to say about TN Coates.
But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover.
This is generally where I am at also.
There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.
President-elect Trump has been a crap-show. There is no reason to think that President Trump will be any different.
I agree that reflection is in order, for a lot of people. I do not expect to see it. I’m not really addressing that to McK or Marty in particular, it’s just the reality of the moment.
As far as Coates goes, the man is a thoughtful and excellent writer. The things he says are not very different from things said by the likes of James Baldwin, or Richard Wright, or WEB Du Bois, or any number of people who have documented the experience of being black in America.
If what he says doesn’t suit you, don’t read him. But as far as I can tell, he’s just sharing his experience and understanding, as a black man living in the US. And on any kind of matter of historical fact, he does his freaking homework.
And that’s all I have to say about TN Coates.
But it’s time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover.
This is generally where I am at also.
There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.
President-elect Trump has been a crap-show. There is no reason to think that President Trump will be any different.
I agree that reflection is in order, for a lot of people. I do not expect to see it. I’m not really addressing that to McK or Marty in particular, it’s just the reality of the moment.
As far as Coates goes, the man is a thoughtful and excellent writer. The things he says are not very different from things said by the likes of James Baldwin, or Richard Wright, or WEB Du Bois, or any number of people who have documented the experience of being black in America.
If what he says doesn’t suit you, don’t read him. But as far as I can tell, he’s just sharing his experience and understanding, as a black man living in the US. And on any kind of matter of historical fact, he does his freaking homework.
And that’s all I have to say about TN Coates.
I have no more to say about Coates.
I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens. Nothing bad has happened.
I am concerned about conflicts of interest, but he can’t sell all of his businesses, if he did it would cost us a fortune because he would take huge losses and the government would have to pay the difference. That is even if he could. I am not sure how you create a blind trust for that set of businesses, but his team says they are working on a solution and I will complain if its not a good one.
“President-elect Trump has been a crap-show.”
Not much fact behind this. He has talked to world leaders, picked a cabinet, basically defended the legitimacy of his Presidency against the CIA, and tweeted a few stupid things. Not exactly a crap show except he cant take a walk to a restaurant without it being a huge faux pax.
There is room for a difference of opinion so far, but not in a different category.
Which pick is scandalous? Sessions isn’t a good choice but he’s not confirmed, there are a few more that might not be confirmed. But the SecofEd and Energy aren’t out of what you would expect, the security side(Defense Homeland etc.) is all generals, we complained that he said he was smarter than generals and then when he hired them. Tillerson was a bad choice but I will bet against his confirmation.
There is no reason to think that anything that is going to happen is different than those that voted for him expected.
Strong defense, less government interference in Education and Energy, more expansive policies from interior. All those picks line up perfectly.I am not sure what policy Ben Carson represents for Housing.
I can go on but nothing has happened yet.
I have no more to say about Coates.
I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens. Nothing bad has happened.
I am concerned about conflicts of interest, but he can’t sell all of his businesses, if he did it would cost us a fortune because he would take huge losses and the government would have to pay the difference. That is even if he could. I am not sure how you create a blind trust for that set of businesses, but his team says they are working on a solution and I will complain if its not a good one.
“President-elect Trump has been a crap-show.”
Not much fact behind this. He has talked to world leaders, picked a cabinet, basically defended the legitimacy of his Presidency against the CIA, and tweeted a few stupid things. Not exactly a crap show except he cant take a walk to a restaurant without it being a huge faux pax.
There is room for a difference of opinion so far, but not in a different category.
Which pick is scandalous? Sessions isn’t a good choice but he’s not confirmed, there are a few more that might not be confirmed. But the SecofEd and Energy aren’t out of what you would expect, the security side(Defense Homeland etc.) is all generals, we complained that he said he was smarter than generals and then when he hired them. Tillerson was a bad choice but I will bet against his confirmation.
There is no reason to think that anything that is going to happen is different than those that voted for him expected.
Strong defense, less government interference in Education and Energy, more expansive policies from interior. All those picks line up perfectly.I am not sure what policy Ben Carson represents for Housing.
I can go on but nothing has happened yet.
I have no more to say about Coates.
I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens. Nothing bad has happened.
I am concerned about conflicts of interest, but he can’t sell all of his businesses, if he did it would cost us a fortune because he would take huge losses and the government would have to pay the difference. That is even if he could. I am not sure how you create a blind trust for that set of businesses, but his team says they are working on a solution and I will complain if its not a good one.
“President-elect Trump has been a crap-show.”
Not much fact behind this. He has talked to world leaders, picked a cabinet, basically defended the legitimacy of his Presidency against the CIA, and tweeted a few stupid things. Not exactly a crap show except he cant take a walk to a restaurant without it being a huge faux pax.
There is room for a difference of opinion so far, but not in a different category.
Which pick is scandalous? Sessions isn’t a good choice but he’s not confirmed, there are a few more that might not be confirmed. But the SecofEd and Energy aren’t out of what you would expect, the security side(Defense Homeland etc.) is all generals, we complained that he said he was smarter than generals and then when he hired them. Tillerson was a bad choice but I will bet against his confirmation.
There is no reason to think that anything that is going to happen is different than those that voted for him expected.
Strong defense, less government interference in Education and Energy, more expansive policies from interior. All those picks line up perfectly.I am not sure what policy Ben Carson represents for Housing.
I can go on but nothing has happened yet.
NV – if you haven’t already you should read this law review article (I may have mentioned it before). “On Being a Happy, Healthy, andn Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession.
My own advice – Big Law will grind you up and spit you out unless you are lucky (as I was, I still didn’t last until partner), or really enjoy the area of law you’re working in, preferably both.
Other areas of law may be more rewarding (government practice – whether litigation or regulatory – or nonprofit), but a lot of those jobs are hard to get and/or require just as many hours as Big Law.
If you’re thinking of going to a lower tier law school (say, outside the top 30, maybe 50), then be prepared to stay local after school for work, unless you’re at the very very top of your class, and maybe even then.
Agree with McKinney on going to school in a warmer climate – can’t be beat.
Also, don’t ever fall behind in the reading, it may be impossible to catch up.
Good luck.
NV – if you haven’t already you should read this law review article (I may have mentioned it before). “On Being a Happy, Healthy, andn Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession.
My own advice – Big Law will grind you up and spit you out unless you are lucky (as I was, I still didn’t last until partner), or really enjoy the area of law you’re working in, preferably both.
Other areas of law may be more rewarding (government practice – whether litigation or regulatory – or nonprofit), but a lot of those jobs are hard to get and/or require just as many hours as Big Law.
If you’re thinking of going to a lower tier law school (say, outside the top 30, maybe 50), then be prepared to stay local after school for work, unless you’re at the very very top of your class, and maybe even then.
Agree with McKinney on going to school in a warmer climate – can’t be beat.
Also, don’t ever fall behind in the reading, it may be impossible to catch up.
Good luck.
NV – if you haven’t already you should read this law review article (I may have mentioned it before). “On Being a Happy, Healthy, andn Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession.
My own advice – Big Law will grind you up and spit you out unless you are lucky (as I was, I still didn’t last until partner), or really enjoy the area of law you’re working in, preferably both.
Other areas of law may be more rewarding (government practice – whether litigation or regulatory – or nonprofit), but a lot of those jobs are hard to get and/or require just as many hours as Big Law.
If you’re thinking of going to a lower tier law school (say, outside the top 30, maybe 50), then be prepared to stay local after school for work, unless you’re at the very very top of your class, and maybe even then.
Agree with McKinney on going to school in a warmer climate – can’t be beat.
Also, don’t ever fall behind in the reading, it may be impossible to catch up.
Good luck.
“Not much fact behind this.”
not much to say in reply. or, so much to say in reply that i’m just not going to bother.
trump is going to be an unending shit show of a POTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a PEOTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a candidate, and frankly just as he’s been an unending shit show of a human being for the last 40, or probably 70, years.
you will of course do nothing until ‘something bad happens’. at which point, i expect that you will respond by doing nothing.
“Not much fact behind this.”
not much to say in reply. or, so much to say in reply that i’m just not going to bother.
trump is going to be an unending shit show of a POTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a PEOTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a candidate, and frankly just as he’s been an unending shit show of a human being for the last 40, or probably 70, years.
you will of course do nothing until ‘something bad happens’. at which point, i expect that you will respond by doing nothing.
“Not much fact behind this.”
not much to say in reply. or, so much to say in reply that i’m just not going to bother.
trump is going to be an unending shit show of a POTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a PEOTUS, just as he’s been an unending shit show of a candidate, and frankly just as he’s been an unending shit show of a human being for the last 40, or probably 70, years.
you will of course do nothing until ‘something bad happens’. at which point, i expect that you will respond by doing nothing.
Which pick is scandalous?
Sessions, Pruitt, Tillorson, Perry, (maybe) Kudlow, certainly Flynn. Puzder is no prize, and Mnuchin is dubious. Monica Crowley, though in a different category, is awful. No one who thinks Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be in government.
Ryan Zinke, like Pruitt, is a disaster. Scandalous? Well, I’m not aware of any misbehavior by either one, but look, climate change is real and a problem.
As I said, it’s a Clown Cabinet.
Which pick is scandalous?
Sessions, Pruitt, Tillorson, Perry, (maybe) Kudlow, certainly Flynn. Puzder is no prize, and Mnuchin is dubious. Monica Crowley, though in a different category, is awful. No one who thinks Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be in government.
Ryan Zinke, like Pruitt, is a disaster. Scandalous? Well, I’m not aware of any misbehavior by either one, but look, climate change is real and a problem.
As I said, it’s a Clown Cabinet.
Which pick is scandalous?
Sessions, Pruitt, Tillorson, Perry, (maybe) Kudlow, certainly Flynn. Puzder is no prize, and Mnuchin is dubious. Monica Crowley, though in a different category, is awful. No one who thinks Huma Abedin is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be in government.
Ryan Zinke, like Pruitt, is a disaster. Scandalous? Well, I’m not aware of any misbehavior by either one, but look, climate change is real and a problem.
As I said, it’s a Clown Cabinet.
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
I can only imagine if Obama had been doing this crap before taking office. The good news is that Putin’s popularity is up among conservatives. Bias-free, baby!
I can only imagine if Obama had been doing this crap before taking office. The good news is that Putin’s popularity is up among conservatives. Bias-free, baby!
I can only imagine if Obama had been doing this crap before taking office. The good news is that Putin’s popularity is up among conservatives. Bias-free, baby!
If prizes were given for rationalizing…I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming? So…don’t worry about that on-coming semi-truck, just never you mind, it hasn’t hit you yet?
If prizes were given for rationalizing…I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming? So…don’t worry about that on-coming semi-truck, just never you mind, it hasn’t hit you yet?
If prizes were given for rationalizing…I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming? So…don’t worry about that on-coming semi-truck, just never you mind, it hasn’t hit you yet?
I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?
I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?
I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
Seems that way.
The thing is, these are for the most part, standard Republican choices, at least insofar as their views go.
This is why I despair, and why I have yet to be convinced that there is such a thing as a “respectable” Republican.
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
Seems that way.
The thing is, these are for the most part, standard Republican choices, at least insofar as their views go.
This is why I despair, and why I have yet to be convinced that there is such a thing as a “respectable” Republican.
The pick for Israeli ambassador is off the deep end.
Seems that way.
The thing is, these are for the most part, standard Republican choices, at least insofar as their views go.
This is why I despair, and why I have yet to be convinced that there is such a thing as a “respectable” Republican.
“I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming?”
If you take steps to avoid disaster, so that it doesn’t happen, then there wasn’t a disaster, so why did you waste all that effort?
And if you cut the disaster-handling budget to the bone, because those disasters just never happen, amrite? Better to give that money
to our millionaire friendsback to the taxpayers, and disaster strikes, well ActaGawd and WooCouldnaNowd?Y2K, I35 bridge collapse, Global warming; plenty of other examples. I guess humanity will just have to ban abortions and contraception to get through it all.
“I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming?”
If you take steps to avoid disaster, so that it doesn’t happen, then there wasn’t a disaster, so why did you waste all that effort?
And if you cut the disaster-handling budget to the bone, because those disasters just never happen, amrite? Better to give that money
to our millionaire friendsback to the taxpayers, and disaster strikes, well ActaGawd and WooCouldnaNowd?Y2K, I35 bridge collapse, Global warming; plenty of other examples. I guess humanity will just have to ban abortions and contraception to get through it all.
“I guess the reasoning is that we should not worry about a disaster until it happens, even if we can see it coming?”
If you take steps to avoid disaster, so that it doesn’t happen, then there wasn’t a disaster, so why did you waste all that effort?
And if you cut the disaster-handling budget to the bone, because those disasters just never happen, amrite? Better to give that money
to our millionaire friendsback to the taxpayers, and disaster strikes, well ActaGawd and WooCouldnaNowd?Y2K, I35 bridge collapse, Global warming; plenty of other examples. I guess humanity will just have to ban abortions and contraception to get through it all.
To the owners/moderators of this blog:
I can’t tell if you have banned sapient, but if so then please ban me as well.
If McKinney and Marty are allowed to spout their Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago) without anyone being allowed to call them Bullshitters, then I don’t see much value in my own ability to comment here.
Heil comrade Trump, y’all.
–TP
To the owners/moderators of this blog:
I can’t tell if you have banned sapient, but if so then please ban me as well.
If McKinney and Marty are allowed to spout their Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago) without anyone being allowed to call them Bullshitters, then I don’t see much value in my own ability to comment here.
Heil comrade Trump, y’all.
–TP
To the owners/moderators of this blog:
I can’t tell if you have banned sapient, but if so then please ban me as well.
If McKinney and Marty are allowed to spout their Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago) without anyone being allowed to call them Bullshitters, then I don’t see much value in my own ability to comment here.
Heil comrade Trump, y’all.
–TP
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
I’d be thankful to be in a house where anyone knew who the fnck TNC was in the first place.
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
I’d be thankful to be in a house where anyone knew who the fnck TNC was in the first place.
TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don’t read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.
I’d be thankful to be in a house where anyone knew who the fnck TNC was in the first place.
no, sapient has not been banned.
no, sapient has not been banned.
no, sapient has not been banned.
“Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago)”
I keep a copy of Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” in my office, and read it from time to time. It is a really great book.
My sense is that we’ve now somehow gone a step beyond bullshit. The basic concept Frankfurt presents is that, in bullshit, the actual truth value of the statement is not the point. The instrumental value of the statement is the point – the ability of what is said to advance the speakers’ agenda.
In the Trump era, I’m not sure that is even so any more. My sense is that it’s not only irrelevant whether things are so or not, it’s not even relevant whether a particular statement advances a particular agenda. I’m not sure there even is an agenda in the normal sense – agendas imply coherence, and goals.
Trump’s agenda, his whole life, has been to aggrandize himself, and make himself obscenely wealthy. It’s not just that it doesn’t matter whether things he says are true or not – the fact that it doesn’t matter sort of is the point.
I’ll build a wall! Except he won’t. Or maybe he will. It doesn’t matter, and only morons care one way or the other. Whatever Trump decides to do will be fine.
One of his supporters famously said that folks who oppose him take him literally, but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think that nails it.
It doesn’t matter what he says, it matters that it’s Trump saying it. That’s more than just bullshit, where truth or falsehood is secondary to instrumental value. It’s a world where what Trump says has the power and authority of truth, because Trump said it.
“Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago)”
I keep a copy of Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” in my office, and read it from time to time. It is a really great book.
My sense is that we’ve now somehow gone a step beyond bullshit. The basic concept Frankfurt presents is that, in bullshit, the actual truth value of the statement is not the point. The instrumental value of the statement is the point – the ability of what is said to advance the speakers’ agenda.
In the Trump era, I’m not sure that is even so any more. My sense is that it’s not only irrelevant whether things are so or not, it’s not even relevant whether a particular statement advances a particular agenda. I’m not sure there even is an agenda in the normal sense – agendas imply coherence, and goals.
Trump’s agenda, his whole life, has been to aggrandize himself, and make himself obscenely wealthy. It’s not just that it doesn’t matter whether things he says are true or not – the fact that it doesn’t matter sort of is the point.
I’ll build a wall! Except he won’t. Or maybe he will. It doesn’t matter, and only morons care one way or the other. Whatever Trump decides to do will be fine.
One of his supporters famously said that folks who oppose him take him literally, but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think that nails it.
It doesn’t matter what he says, it matters that it’s Trump saying it. That’s more than just bullshit, where truth or falsehood is secondary to instrumental value. It’s a world where what Trump says has the power and authority of truth, because Trump said it.
“Bullshit (a term of art, thoroughly explicated in a book of the same name some years ago)”
I keep a copy of Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” in my office, and read it from time to time. It is a really great book.
My sense is that we’ve now somehow gone a step beyond bullshit. The basic concept Frankfurt presents is that, in bullshit, the actual truth value of the statement is not the point. The instrumental value of the statement is the point – the ability of what is said to advance the speakers’ agenda.
In the Trump era, I’m not sure that is even so any more. My sense is that it’s not only irrelevant whether things are so or not, it’s not even relevant whether a particular statement advances a particular agenda. I’m not sure there even is an agenda in the normal sense – agendas imply coherence, and goals.
Trump’s agenda, his whole life, has been to aggrandize himself, and make himself obscenely wealthy. It’s not just that it doesn’t matter whether things he says are true or not – the fact that it doesn’t matter sort of is the point.
I’ll build a wall! Except he won’t. Or maybe he will. It doesn’t matter, and only morons care one way or the other. Whatever Trump decides to do will be fine.
One of his supporters famously said that folks who oppose him take him literally, but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. I think that nails it.
It doesn’t matter what he says, it matters that it’s Trump saying it. That’s more than just bullshit, where truth or falsehood is secondary to instrumental value. It’s a world where what Trump says has the power and authority of truth, because Trump said it.
“I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?”
Nope, still do. Just don’t think its the end of the world as we know it. He is making it as hard as he can make it. But the Democrats and the media are still campaigning.
After the 19th, if he gets actually elected, then he will be the next President. Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy. Then he nominates Tillerson and Sessions, and I say those choices suck, but they aren’t confirmed.
Mostly, I am going to start doing a thing every day to do what? Get him impeached? He hasn’t actually done anything to warrant that. To support a Democratic coup? Wouldn’t even if I thought it had a chance. Sit on the web and call everyone that doesn’t call him a Nazi a Nazi?
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
“I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?”
Nope, still do. Just don’t think its the end of the world as we know it. He is making it as hard as he can make it. But the Democrats and the media are still campaigning.
After the 19th, if he gets actually elected, then he will be the next President. Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy. Then he nominates Tillerson and Sessions, and I say those choices suck, but they aren’t confirmed.
Mostly, I am going to start doing a thing every day to do what? Get him impeached? He hasn’t actually done anything to warrant that. To support a Democratic coup? Wouldn’t even if I thought it had a chance. Sit on the web and call everyone that doesn’t call him a Nazi a Nazi?
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
“I thought Marty thought Trump was an idiot a little over a month ago. Am I wrong about that?”
Nope, still do. Just don’t think its the end of the world as we know it. He is making it as hard as he can make it. But the Democrats and the media are still campaigning.
After the 19th, if he gets actually elected, then he will be the next President. Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy. Then he nominates Tillerson and Sessions, and I say those choices suck, but they aren’t confirmed.
Mostly, I am going to start doing a thing every day to do what? Get him impeached? He hasn’t actually done anything to warrant that. To support a Democratic coup? Wouldn’t even if I thought it had a chance. Sit on the web and call everyone that doesn’t call him a Nazi a Nazi?
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
“I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens”
whatever it was that you were talking about when you said this.
“I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens”
whatever it was that you were talking about when you said this.
“I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens”
whatever it was that you were talking about when you said this.
See russell, that depends on what happens.
See russell, that depends on what happens.
See russell, that depends on what happens.
cant wait too see what will be bad enough to qualify as worth your attention
cant wait too see what will be bad enough to qualify as worth your attention
cant wait too see what will be bad enough to qualify as worth your attention
well it will have to be something. nothing doesn’t qualify for action. the situation certainly has my attention.
well it will have to be something. nothing doesn’t qualify for action. the situation certainly has my attention.
well it will have to be something. nothing doesn’t qualify for action. the situation certainly has my attention.
look marty, since being elected trump has poked the PRC into seizing an American unmanned vessel, nominated a Sec of Energy who wanted to eliminate the department, has scheduled and then cancelled a presser on how he is going to deal with the obvious conflicts of interest he is going to face and which may render him impeachable the second he takes office.
he wants his son in law as his advisor. his understanding of “blind trust” is “my kids will run it”. he blasts random tweets at anyone who criticizes him, in two cases so far shaving billions of dollars off the book value of American corps.
because he was in a snit.
I could go on all night. the man is utterly unfit for the office.
I don’t give a crap if you “do something” or not. I find your blase “he’s just a regular republican” attitude to be more or less beyond what I can understand.
no, he’s not just a regular (R). yes, he is already doing damage, and he’s not even in office yet.
have a good night.
look marty, since being elected trump has poked the PRC into seizing an American unmanned vessel, nominated a Sec of Energy who wanted to eliminate the department, has scheduled and then cancelled a presser on how he is going to deal with the obvious conflicts of interest he is going to face and which may render him impeachable the second he takes office.
he wants his son in law as his advisor. his understanding of “blind trust” is “my kids will run it”. he blasts random tweets at anyone who criticizes him, in two cases so far shaving billions of dollars off the book value of American corps.
because he was in a snit.
I could go on all night. the man is utterly unfit for the office.
I don’t give a crap if you “do something” or not. I find your blase “he’s just a regular republican” attitude to be more or less beyond what I can understand.
no, he’s not just a regular (R). yes, he is already doing damage, and he’s not even in office yet.
have a good night.
look marty, since being elected trump has poked the PRC into seizing an American unmanned vessel, nominated a Sec of Energy who wanted to eliminate the department, has scheduled and then cancelled a presser on how he is going to deal with the obvious conflicts of interest he is going to face and which may render him impeachable the second he takes office.
he wants his son in law as his advisor. his understanding of “blind trust” is “my kids will run it”. he blasts random tweets at anyone who criticizes him, in two cases so far shaving billions of dollars off the book value of American corps.
because he was in a snit.
I could go on all night. the man is utterly unfit for the office.
I don’t give a crap if you “do something” or not. I find your blase “he’s just a regular republican” attitude to be more or less beyond what I can understand.
no, he’s not just a regular (R). yes, he is already doing damage, and he’s not even in office yet.
have a good night.
But it’s OK now,Gingrich has explained the Trump plan, apparently all encompassing:
“He’s going to kick over the table.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/gingrich-trump-election/510983/
But it’s OK now,Gingrich has explained the Trump plan, apparently all encompassing:
“He’s going to kick over the table.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/gingrich-trump-election/510983/
But it’s OK now,Gingrich has explained the Trump plan, apparently all encompassing:
“He’s going to kick over the table.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/gingrich-trump-election/510983/
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
I have no idea. It just seemed that your opinion had changed.
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
I have no idea. It just seemed that your opinion had changed.
What exactly is it that you suspect I should do?
I have no idea. It just seemed that your opinion had changed.
From Nigel’s Atlantic link:
I guess “specifically” didn’t quite register.
From Nigel’s Atlantic link:
I guess “specifically” didn’t quite register.
From Nigel’s Atlantic link:
I guess “specifically” didn’t quite register.
I am actually glad that TRump i sthe face of the Republican party. His bullshit and horribleness is standard Repubican bullshit and horribleness.
It is not completely new in our history. It is a reversion to Jim Crow, RObber Barons, the Know NOthing Party The Octopus, what was that other Sincleair Lewis book? I’m getting aphasic.
To understand the fundamental threat the Republican party is to representative government and just plain humane decency, look at Repubican-occupied Wisconsin and Nroth Carolina. To see an example of Republican voters claiming that it isn;t so bad or there is no problem, just look for people who are not directly being screwed over themselves and who don;t give a shit about the people being harmed or the principles being trounced or the institutions being subverted.
I am actually glad that TRump i sthe face of the Republican party. His bullshit and horribleness is standard Repubican bullshit and horribleness.
It is not completely new in our history. It is a reversion to Jim Crow, RObber Barons, the Know NOthing Party The Octopus, what was that other Sincleair Lewis book? I’m getting aphasic.
To understand the fundamental threat the Republican party is to representative government and just plain humane decency, look at Repubican-occupied Wisconsin and Nroth Carolina. To see an example of Republican voters claiming that it isn;t so bad or there is no problem, just look for people who are not directly being screwed over themselves and who don;t give a shit about the people being harmed or the principles being trounced or the institutions being subverted.
I am actually glad that TRump i sthe face of the Republican party. His bullshit and horribleness is standard Repubican bullshit and horribleness.
It is not completely new in our history. It is a reversion to Jim Crow, RObber Barons, the Know NOthing Party The Octopus, what was that other Sincleair Lewis book? I’m getting aphasic.
To understand the fundamental threat the Republican party is to representative government and just plain humane decency, look at Repubican-occupied Wisconsin and Nroth Carolina. To see an example of Republican voters claiming that it isn;t so bad or there is no problem, just look for people who are not directly being screwed over themselves and who don;t give a shit about the people being harmed or the principles being trounced or the institutions being subverted.
If it is not a terrible breach of blog etiquette (and if it is, I apologise), could someone who has sapient’s email address please copy and send him my post of 07.31 p.m. yesterday? He may have been speaking to me when he said “Please show some support for me”, and then we cross posted and he was off, so there is a chance he didn’t see me doing just that. Of course, he may have seen it and been dissatisfied with it, but I would like to cover it, just in case. I have a great deal of affection, respect and sympathy for sapient, and would not want him to think I had ignored his direct appeal.
If it is not a terrible breach of blog etiquette (and if it is, I apologise), could someone who has sapient’s email address please copy and send him my post of 07.31 p.m. yesterday? He may have been speaking to me when he said “Please show some support for me”, and then we cross posted and he was off, so there is a chance he didn’t see me doing just that. Of course, he may have seen it and been dissatisfied with it, but I would like to cover it, just in case. I have a great deal of affection, respect and sympathy for sapient, and would not want him to think I had ignored his direct appeal.
If it is not a terrible breach of blog etiquette (and if it is, I apologise), could someone who has sapient’s email address please copy and send him my post of 07.31 p.m. yesterday? He may have been speaking to me when he said “Please show some support for me”, and then we cross posted and he was off, so there is a chance he didn’t see me doing just that. Of course, he may have seen it and been dissatisfied with it, but I would like to cover it, just in case. I have a great deal of affection, respect and sympathy for sapient, and would not want him to think I had ignored his direct appeal.
Here’s an interesting, if frightening, piece on Trumpism, with a bit of discussion on the racism that is part of it. It involves Hunter S. Thompson and the Hell’s Angels, if that piques your curiousity.
Here’s an interesting, if frightening, piece on Trumpism, with a bit of discussion on the racism that is part of it. It involves Hunter S. Thompson and the Hell’s Angels, if that piques your curiousity.
Here’s an interesting, if frightening, piece on Trumpism, with a bit of discussion on the racism that is part of it. It involves Hunter S. Thompson and the Hell’s Angels, if that piques your curiousity.
Thank you, GftNC, Tony P., and my friends here. I’m happy not to be banned, and appreciate your kind words.
Thank you, GftNC, Tony P., and my friends here. I’m happy not to be banned, and appreciate your kind words.
Thank you, GftNC, Tony P., and my friends here. I’m happy not to be banned, and appreciate your kind words.
I think curiousity is the Norfolk Island spelling.
I think curiousity is the Norfolk Island spelling.
I think curiousity is the Norfolk Island spelling.
I thought the best bit was this piece of completely unanswerable logic:
“I expect Trump to do what he says he’s gonna do … to make America great again,” Small chimed in. “If I have to tell somebody what that is, they don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Though I’d like to know, as someone who gets to clear up after quite a lot of parties, just who it is that’s going to be picking up all those tables…
I thought the best bit was this piece of completely unanswerable logic:
“I expect Trump to do what he says he’s gonna do … to make America great again,” Small chimed in. “If I have to tell somebody what that is, they don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Though I’d like to know, as someone who gets to clear up after quite a lot of parties, just who it is that’s going to be picking up all those tables…
I thought the best bit was this piece of completely unanswerable logic:
“I expect Trump to do what he says he’s gonna do … to make America great again,” Small chimed in. “If I have to tell somebody what that is, they don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Though I’d like to know, as someone who gets to clear up after quite a lot of parties, just who it is that’s going to be picking up all those tables…
I think part of the conflict with Marty about Trump can be explained by this:
Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy.
Yes. And many of us think that
1. Average Republican policy is pretty bad.
2. We are likely to see not average but much worse.
3. Uniquely Trumpist shenanigans will be piled on top of all that.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’m sure others can add items. These ideas are, to my mind, catastrophically stupid and destructive. yet they are mainstream GOP notions, supported by most of their primary candidates and Congressional leaders.
Add Trump to that and you can understand why my reaction to the current situation is one of extreme concern for the future.
I think part of the conflict with Marty about Trump can be explained by this:
Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy.
Yes. And many of us think that
1. Average Republican policy is pretty bad.
2. We are likely to see not average but much worse.
3. Uniquely Trumpist shenanigans will be piled on top of all that.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’m sure others can add items. These ideas are, to my mind, catastrophically stupid and destructive. yet they are mainstream GOP notions, supported by most of their primary candidates and Congressional leaders.
Add Trump to that and you can understand why my reaction to the current situation is one of extreme concern for the future.
I think part of the conflict with Marty about Trump can be explained by this:
Lots of stuff that people complain about him is pretty average Republican policy.
Yes. And many of us think that
1. Average Republican policy is pretty bad.
2. We are likely to see not average but much worse.
3. Uniquely Trumpist shenanigans will be piled on top of all that.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’m sure others can add items. These ideas are, to my mind, catastrophically stupid and destructive. yet they are mainstream GOP notions, supported by most of their primary candidates and Congressional leaders.
Add Trump to that and you can understand why my reaction to the current situation is one of extreme concern for the future.
hsh, I read Hunter S’s Hells Angels years ago, had forgotten how good (and how prescient) it was. Thanks for this.
hsh, I read Hunter S’s Hells Angels years ago, had forgotten how good (and how prescient) it was. Thanks for this.
hsh, I read Hunter S’s Hells Angels years ago, had forgotten how good (and how prescient) it was. Thanks for this.
What byomtov said. It’s not just your reaction…
What byomtov said. It’s not just your reaction…
What byomtov said. It’s not just your reaction…
what bernie said, with bells on, and then some.
what bernie said, with bells on, and then some.
what bernie said, with bells on, and then some.
I think much of what we’re seeing in the discussion here is that the common-or-garden Republican ideology is not what many of us may have imagined; it essentially is Trumpism. The authoritarian moves we’re going to see in coming years, the harassment and scapegoating of minorities, the restriction of democracy and criticism, the erosion of institutions, Gilded Age economics and erratic foreign policy–these are going to be only a matter of degree exaggerated from what happened under George W. Bush, and not too different from what we probably would have seen under a McCain or Romney administration–but without the fig leaf of an allegedly “moderate” or “centrist” figure at the top.
I think much of what we’re seeing in the discussion here is that the common-or-garden Republican ideology is not what many of us may have imagined; it essentially is Trumpism. The authoritarian moves we’re going to see in coming years, the harassment and scapegoating of minorities, the restriction of democracy and criticism, the erosion of institutions, Gilded Age economics and erratic foreign policy–these are going to be only a matter of degree exaggerated from what happened under George W. Bush, and not too different from what we probably would have seen under a McCain or Romney administration–but without the fig leaf of an allegedly “moderate” or “centrist” figure at the top.
I think much of what we’re seeing in the discussion here is that the common-or-garden Republican ideology is not what many of us may have imagined; it essentially is Trumpism. The authoritarian moves we’re going to see in coming years, the harassment and scapegoating of minorities, the restriction of democracy and criticism, the erosion of institutions, Gilded Age economics and erratic foreign policy–these are going to be only a matter of degree exaggerated from what happened under George W. Bush, and not too different from what we probably would have seen under a McCain or Romney administration–but without the fig leaf of an allegedly “moderate” or “centrist” figure at the top.
yup
yup
yup
As I think about it – which I try not to do, but the Real World [tm] keeps impinging on my attempted tranquility – the Trump election actually entails two overlapping sets of fears.
One is the actions he will take as President. Marty focuses exclusively on this, and points out (correctly) that (1) he is not yet President, and (2) he may not get all he wants, including some of his proposed nominees. (Marty seems to think the worst ones may be blocked, which strikes me as unduly optimistic; if any are blocked, it might as easily be the best.) So, shorter Marty: “What, Me Worry?”
The other is the use he makes of the bully pulpit he has, and will have for years, and its effect on the quality of American society in general. Openly expressed racism and sexism. Contempt for the law, starting with the Constitution, rivaling Nixon’s (“If the President does it, it’s not illegal”). Thin-skinned over-reaction to every perceived slight, with the threat of retaliation. Ham-fisted ventures in foreign “policy,” which have already resulted in further roiling relations with China. Ongoing and persistent public dishonesty – flat-out lying – with the clear message that truth doesn’t matter.
And as President-Elect-(almost) Trump represents the United States, both to others and to ourselves. He is Us.
This latter bothers me at least as much as the formal actions Trump may take when he finally assumes the Presidency.
But not Marty.
“What, Me Worry?”
As I think about it – which I try not to do, but the Real World [tm] keeps impinging on my attempted tranquility – the Trump election actually entails two overlapping sets of fears.
One is the actions he will take as President. Marty focuses exclusively on this, and points out (correctly) that (1) he is not yet President, and (2) he may not get all he wants, including some of his proposed nominees. (Marty seems to think the worst ones may be blocked, which strikes me as unduly optimistic; if any are blocked, it might as easily be the best.) So, shorter Marty: “What, Me Worry?”
The other is the use he makes of the bully pulpit he has, and will have for years, and its effect on the quality of American society in general. Openly expressed racism and sexism. Contempt for the law, starting with the Constitution, rivaling Nixon’s (“If the President does it, it’s not illegal”). Thin-skinned over-reaction to every perceived slight, with the threat of retaliation. Ham-fisted ventures in foreign “policy,” which have already resulted in further roiling relations with China. Ongoing and persistent public dishonesty – flat-out lying – with the clear message that truth doesn’t matter.
And as President-Elect-(almost) Trump represents the United States, both to others and to ourselves. He is Us.
This latter bothers me at least as much as the formal actions Trump may take when he finally assumes the Presidency.
But not Marty.
“What, Me Worry?”
As I think about it – which I try not to do, but the Real World [tm] keeps impinging on my attempted tranquility – the Trump election actually entails two overlapping sets of fears.
One is the actions he will take as President. Marty focuses exclusively on this, and points out (correctly) that (1) he is not yet President, and (2) he may not get all he wants, including some of his proposed nominees. (Marty seems to think the worst ones may be blocked, which strikes me as unduly optimistic; if any are blocked, it might as easily be the best.) So, shorter Marty: “What, Me Worry?”
The other is the use he makes of the bully pulpit he has, and will have for years, and its effect on the quality of American society in general. Openly expressed racism and sexism. Contempt for the law, starting with the Constitution, rivaling Nixon’s (“If the President does it, it’s not illegal”). Thin-skinned over-reaction to every perceived slight, with the threat of retaliation. Ham-fisted ventures in foreign “policy,” which have already resulted in further roiling relations with China. Ongoing and persistent public dishonesty – flat-out lying – with the clear message that truth doesn’t matter.
And as President-Elect-(almost) Trump represents the United States, both to others and to ourselves. He is Us.
This latter bothers me at least as much as the formal actions Trump may take when he finally assumes the Presidency.
But not Marty.
“What, Me Worry?”
Bernie left something out: He, Trump’s Birtherism.
“Rank and file” Republicans voted for Him in the primary, certainly despite it and possibly because of it. “Working class whites” voted for him in the general because … well, theories abound, most of which pussyfoot around or just plain ignore His Birtherism.
A propos of nothing, does anybody know of any poll of “white working class” Trump voters in which they are squarely asked:
1. “Do you support or oppose a $12 minimum wage?” and
2. “Do you support or oppose a cut in the corporate tax rate?”
I’d love to know how these economically-downtrodden-and-resentful-about-it “working class whites” answer those questions.
–TP
Bernie left something out: He, Trump’s Birtherism.
“Rank and file” Republicans voted for Him in the primary, certainly despite it and possibly because of it. “Working class whites” voted for him in the general because … well, theories abound, most of which pussyfoot around or just plain ignore His Birtherism.
A propos of nothing, does anybody know of any poll of “white working class” Trump voters in which they are squarely asked:
1. “Do you support or oppose a $12 minimum wage?” and
2. “Do you support or oppose a cut in the corporate tax rate?”
I’d love to know how these economically-downtrodden-and-resentful-about-it “working class whites” answer those questions.
–TP
Bernie left something out: He, Trump’s Birtherism.
“Rank and file” Republicans voted for Him in the primary, certainly despite it and possibly because of it. “Working class whites” voted for him in the general because … well, theories abound, most of which pussyfoot around or just plain ignore His Birtherism.
A propos of nothing, does anybody know of any poll of “white working class” Trump voters in which they are squarely asked:
1. “Do you support or oppose a $12 minimum wage?” and
2. “Do you support or oppose a cut in the corporate tax rate?”
I’d love to know how these economically-downtrodden-and-resentful-about-it “working class whites” answer those questions.
–TP
For those looking for any reason for (possibly slight) optimism, consider this. The last time we went thru a Gilded Age, the result was the rise of the Progressives. Which ended up with things not only improving, but substantially improved over what they had been pre-Gilded Age.
Yes, a lot of people will get hurt in the short term. But you knew that. The long-term optimism comes from having seen this before, and how the reaction went when it finally occurred.
For those looking for any reason for (possibly slight) optimism, consider this. The last time we went thru a Gilded Age, the result was the rise of the Progressives. Which ended up with things not only improving, but substantially improved over what they had been pre-Gilded Age.
Yes, a lot of people will get hurt in the short term. But you knew that. The long-term optimism comes from having seen this before, and how the reaction went when it finally occurred.
For those looking for any reason for (possibly slight) optimism, consider this. The last time we went thru a Gilded Age, the result was the rise of the Progressives. Which ended up with things not only improving, but substantially improved over what they had been pre-Gilded Age.
Yes, a lot of people will get hurt in the short term. But you knew that. The long-term optimism comes from having seen this before, and how the reaction went when it finally occurred.
WJ- Hopefully the rise of Progressivism will not be overshadowed by the rise of global temperatures upending the whole thing.
Global environmental policy is going to have to find away around the likely regulatory scorched earth fire sale and find away to handle its own $#!+ because we’re not going to get any help from this executive regime for at least four years.
WJ- Hopefully the rise of Progressivism will not be overshadowed by the rise of global temperatures upending the whole thing.
Global environmental policy is going to have to find away around the likely regulatory scorched earth fire sale and find away to handle its own $#!+ because we’re not going to get any help from this executive regime for at least four years.
WJ- Hopefully the rise of Progressivism will not be overshadowed by the rise of global temperatures upending the whole thing.
Global environmental policy is going to have to find away around the likely regulatory scorched earth fire sale and find away to handle its own $#!+ because we’re not going to get any help from this executive regime for at least four years.
Make that “a way” x2.
Make that “a way” x2.
Make that “a way” x2.
wj,
I’m not convinced.
Maybe dr ngo or someone else who knows a lot more history than I do can comment, but while I believe there is usually a reaction to Gilded Age economies, I’m not at all certain that we can count on those reactions being peaceful democratic affairs. HAve ther not been counterexamples?
wj,
I’m not convinced.
Maybe dr ngo or someone else who knows a lot more history than I do can comment, but while I believe there is usually a reaction to Gilded Age economies, I’m not at all certain that we can count on those reactions being peaceful democratic affairs. HAve ther not been counterexamples?
wj,
I’m not convinced.
Maybe dr ngo or someone else who knows a lot more history than I do can comment, but while I believe there is usually a reaction to Gilded Age economies, I’m not at all certain that we can count on those reactions being peaceful democratic affairs. HAve ther not been counterexamples?
Byomtov,
Not really aiming for convincing. Just looking for possible silver linings to the clouds. At this point, a lot of us just need hope — however nice conviction might be.
Byomtov,
Not really aiming for convincing. Just looking for possible silver linings to the clouds. At this point, a lot of us just need hope — however nice conviction might be.
Byomtov,
Not really aiming for convincing. Just looking for possible silver linings to the clouds. At this point, a lot of us just need hope — however nice conviction might be.
Unfortunately, Tim Snyder’s commentary with similarities to 1930’s Germany seems more persuasive to me than the Guilded Age comparison.
In addition to the horrible domestic policy and reckless foreign policy that Trump seems to be pursuing, he’s stated his admiration for the most brutal and horrendous dictators. This, combined with his inner circle and some of his cabinet selections, along with his conflicts of interests, and apparent fealty to Putin – he’s a cruel leader, and he has a bunch of goons at the ready. And very complicit Republican tea party people. I’m also very worried about how our many incarcerated people will be exploited.
I have no confidence that Trump or his cronies have any interest at all in the people of this country. I don’t see the evidence for it. And the middle finger mentality of most Republican voters is a huge assist.
Unfortunately, Tim Snyder’s commentary with similarities to 1930’s Germany seems more persuasive to me than the Guilded Age comparison.
In addition to the horrible domestic policy and reckless foreign policy that Trump seems to be pursuing, he’s stated his admiration for the most brutal and horrendous dictators. This, combined with his inner circle and some of his cabinet selections, along with his conflicts of interests, and apparent fealty to Putin – he’s a cruel leader, and he has a bunch of goons at the ready. And very complicit Republican tea party people. I’m also very worried about how our many incarcerated people will be exploited.
I have no confidence that Trump or his cronies have any interest at all in the people of this country. I don’t see the evidence for it. And the middle finger mentality of most Republican voters is a huge assist.
Unfortunately, Tim Snyder’s commentary with similarities to 1930’s Germany seems more persuasive to me than the Guilded Age comparison.
In addition to the horrible domestic policy and reckless foreign policy that Trump seems to be pursuing, he’s stated his admiration for the most brutal and horrendous dictators. This, combined with his inner circle and some of his cabinet selections, along with his conflicts of interests, and apparent fealty to Putin – he’s a cruel leader, and he has a bunch of goons at the ready. And very complicit Republican tea party people. I’m also very worried about how our many incarcerated people will be exploited.
I have no confidence that Trump or his cronies have any interest at all in the people of this country. I don’t see the evidence for it. And the middle finger mentality of most Republican voters is a huge assist.
And wj, hope is good, but action is better. GftNC posted an action plan. People who care need to start being in their face.
And wj, hope is good, but action is better. GftNC posted an action plan. People who care need to start being in their face.
And wj, hope is good, but action is better. GftNC posted an action plan. People who care need to start being in their face.
Have just read a most fascinating review of what sounds like a fascinating book in today’s Guardian. The review, by John Banville, is on The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction, by Mark Lilla.
Thinking obsessively about Trump, as we all have been, the following passage jumped out at me, particularly the last sentence which I have made bold:
For anyone who wants to read the whole review, here is the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/14/the-shipwrecked-mind-on-political-reaction-by-mark-lilla-review
Have just read a most fascinating review of what sounds like a fascinating book in today’s Guardian. The review, by John Banville, is on The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction, by Mark Lilla.
Thinking obsessively about Trump, as we all have been, the following passage jumped out at me, particularly the last sentence which I have made bold:
For anyone who wants to read the whole review, here is the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/14/the-shipwrecked-mind-on-political-reaction-by-mark-lilla-review
Have just read a most fascinating review of what sounds like a fascinating book in today’s Guardian. The review, by John Banville, is on The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction, by Mark Lilla.
Thinking obsessively about Trump, as we all have been, the following passage jumped out at me, particularly the last sentence which I have made bold:
For anyone who wants to read the whole review, here is the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/14/the-shipwrecked-mind-on-political-reaction-by-mark-lilla-review
The link to the action plan by the congressional aides which I got from hilzoy’s feed was indeed excellent, but I am bothered by this: the tactics they outline did, as they say, raise the Tea Party to unbelievable heights, but the Tea Party had the megaphone of Fox News. Where will Trump’s opponents find a similar megaphone? Local news covering the pressuring of Members of Congress is all very well, but it’s not enough. Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
The link to the action plan by the congressional aides which I got from hilzoy’s feed was indeed excellent, but I am bothered by this: the tactics they outline did, as they say, raise the Tea Party to unbelievable heights, but the Tea Party had the megaphone of Fox News. Where will Trump’s opponents find a similar megaphone? Local news covering the pressuring of Members of Congress is all very well, but it’s not enough. Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
The link to the action plan by the congressional aides which I got from hilzoy’s feed was indeed excellent, but I am bothered by this: the tactics they outline did, as they say, raise the Tea Party to unbelievable heights, but the Tea Party had the megaphone of Fox News. Where will Trump’s opponents find a similar megaphone? Local news covering the pressuring of Members of Congress is all very well, but it’s not enough. Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
Interesting question, but Fox News is a bubble, and there are social media bubbles for the Resistance. Our main challenges, IMO, are persistence and focus. There are a lot of us, so that’s a plus. We have to keep the energy going, because it’s going to take awhile.
Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
Interesting question, but Fox News is a bubble, and there are social media bubbles for the Resistance. Our main challenges, IMO, are persistence and focus. There are a lot of us, so that’s a plus. We have to keep the energy going, because it’s going to take awhile.
Can the MSM be shamed, by having elevated Trump in the first place, into giving proper coverage to the resistance to him?
Interesting question, but Fox News is a bubble, and there are social media bubbles for the Resistance. Our main challenges, IMO, are persistence and focus. There are a lot of us, so that’s a plus. We have to keep the energy going, because it’s going to take awhile.
Also, the tea party people were creating chaos out of structure. We are going to have to support institutions that have been made chaotic. I fully expect crises and extreme disasters. Trump is already playing dangerous games with China. Depending on what Putin wants, things might get out of control pretty quickly.
Also, the tea party people were creating chaos out of structure. We are going to have to support institutions that have been made chaotic. I fully expect crises and extreme disasters. Trump is already playing dangerous games with China. Depending on what Putin wants, things might get out of control pretty quickly.
Also, the tea party people were creating chaos out of structure. We are going to have to support institutions that have been made chaotic. I fully expect crises and extreme disasters. Trump is already playing dangerous games with China. Depending on what Putin wants, things might get out of control pretty quickly.
hope is good, but action is better.
No argument. But without hope, action is pointless.
hope is good, but action is better.
No argument. But without hope, action is pointless.
hope is good, but action is better.
No argument. But without hope, action is pointless.
Entropy always has the advantage over order. Far less energy needed.
Entropy always has the advantage over order. Far less energy needed.
Entropy always has the advantage over order. Far less energy needed.
Since I’ve been mentioned by name, I’ll jump in long enough to confess my ignorance as a future historian. True enough, in US history (and arguably in UK) swings to the right have usually been followed – eventually – by swings back in a more “progressive” direction, but the same is not true for many other countries (Germany has been mentioned, but arguably also Spain, France, Italy, Russia, China, to name but a few) where the only way to get the pendulum of history to swing back has been violent revolution or civil war. And remember we’re most familiar with the states that have _survived_ – many ancient empires simply disappeared, in part (presumably) because the damage done by inept or malevolent leaders was irreparable. So I wouldn’t count on a swing back unless you agree with Marty that Trump is just an ordinary Republican hack who will do what he will do for a term or two without messing up the underlying structure, or unraveling the fabric of society further. It might happen. Hope is nice. But it doesn’t come with a guarantee.
Remember: Things Always Look Darkest Just Before They Go Completely Black.
Since I’ve been mentioned by name, I’ll jump in long enough to confess my ignorance as a future historian. True enough, in US history (and arguably in UK) swings to the right have usually been followed – eventually – by swings back in a more “progressive” direction, but the same is not true for many other countries (Germany has been mentioned, but arguably also Spain, France, Italy, Russia, China, to name but a few) where the only way to get the pendulum of history to swing back has been violent revolution or civil war. And remember we’re most familiar with the states that have _survived_ – many ancient empires simply disappeared, in part (presumably) because the damage done by inept or malevolent leaders was irreparable. So I wouldn’t count on a swing back unless you agree with Marty that Trump is just an ordinary Republican hack who will do what he will do for a term or two without messing up the underlying structure, or unraveling the fabric of society further. It might happen. Hope is nice. But it doesn’t come with a guarantee.
Remember: Things Always Look Darkest Just Before They Go Completely Black.
Since I’ve been mentioned by name, I’ll jump in long enough to confess my ignorance as a future historian. True enough, in US history (and arguably in UK) swings to the right have usually been followed – eventually – by swings back in a more “progressive” direction, but the same is not true for many other countries (Germany has been mentioned, but arguably also Spain, France, Italy, Russia, China, to name but a few) where the only way to get the pendulum of history to swing back has been violent revolution or civil war. And remember we’re most familiar with the states that have _survived_ – many ancient empires simply disappeared, in part (presumably) because the damage done by inept or malevolent leaders was irreparable. So I wouldn’t count on a swing back unless you agree with Marty that Trump is just an ordinary Republican hack who will do what he will do for a term or two without messing up the underlying structure, or unraveling the fabric of society further. It might happen. Hope is nice. But it doesn’t come with a guarantee.
Remember: Things Always Look Darkest Just Before They Go Completely Black.
Re: tony p’s question, the front pagers only come together when there is a great disturbance in the force, such that banning would be needed. On the other hand, asking people to take a break for a bit shouldn’t be construed as banning. Consider it an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. Whether that age is totally gone or not depends on people’s reaction to it…
Re: tony p’s question, the front pagers only come together when there is a great disturbance in the force, such that banning would be needed. On the other hand, asking people to take a break for a bit shouldn’t be construed as banning. Consider it an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. Whether that age is totally gone or not depends on people’s reaction to it…
Re: tony p’s question, the front pagers only come together when there is a great disturbance in the force, such that banning would be needed. On the other hand, asking people to take a break for a bit shouldn’t be construed as banning. Consider it an elegant weapon for a more civilized age. Whether that age is totally gone or not depends on people’s reaction to it…
And I hasten to add, no one’s been given any kind of vacation yet.
And I hasten to add, no one’s been given any kind of vacation yet.
And I hasten to add, no one’s been given any kind of vacation yet.
To return to discussing racism…
Good thing-We’ve made racism such a toxic notion that everyone, especially conservatives, run squealing when it is pointed out that something they support, think or do could be classified as racist.
Bad thing-Because it’s such a loaded term, it becomes the equivalent of a nuclear device that both sides hold ready to lob into the conversation, preventing everyone from having any rational discussion about it and permitting those who do actively hold those views to enter into the conversation (cf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third)
Like Russell, I think that _everyone_ is a bit racist, because we are immersed in it. Eric Foner,(via LGM) in his discussion of Coates’ previously mentioned article, explains how Obama’s notion of political change is influenced by that same environment, which is to say that it is ‘racist’.
Debs understood that movements, not just political leaders, make social change possible. Obama has never really learned that lesson. To be sure, he sought to cultivate an identification with history by embracing the civil-rights movement, though this is hardly a controversial stance at a time when Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday is a national holiday and even Glenn Beck claims his legacy. But even then, Obama embraced a sanitized version in which the movement represents a fulfillment of basic American ideals, not the unfulfilled “revolution of values” that King hoped to see. Obama doesn’t invoke the radical King who spoke of “democratic socialism,” launched the Poor People’s Campaign, and supported the antiwar movement.
Some might freak at the notion that Obama is ‘racist’, which gives one a sense of the problem with the term, in that a lot of people view it as an active worldview that sets about oppressing minorities. But ‘racist’ he is because he has to modulate everything he does in order to not fall afoul of notions floating around in the political zeitgeist. ‘Racist’ means that he had to portray himself about the fray and whitewash (there’s a term) serious problems we have. And even when he offhandedly observes that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon Martin, he gets a measure and a half of shit.
The power of the term ‘racist’ is what gives McT a conniption fit every time he takes a momentary break from his lawyering. This is what has Marty claim that people just like their own kind, because he was made to feel uncomfortable at a party a black coworker invited him to once. The fact that receiving that infinitesimal miniscule dose of the same shit that black people in the US receive every day of their lives has him busily rationalizing away any notion that racism is a problem suggests that the mere accusation of racism is so toxic that we make sure that everything connected to us and ours can’t ever be remotely linked to it. Great that we all abhor it, but not so good that we can’t see it when it is sitting in front of us.
Racism, at least as I understand it, is not simply the active pressing of a view that some races are inherently less worthy than others, it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you. It’s shitty, I know, to be racist just because you are immersed in it, but that is the way cultural influences are: To get away from them, you have to cut yourself from almost everything else you know.
To return to discussing racism…
Good thing-We’ve made racism such a toxic notion that everyone, especially conservatives, run squealing when it is pointed out that something they support, think or do could be classified as racist.
Bad thing-Because it’s such a loaded term, it becomes the equivalent of a nuclear device that both sides hold ready to lob into the conversation, preventing everyone from having any rational discussion about it and permitting those who do actively hold those views to enter into the conversation (cf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third)
Like Russell, I think that _everyone_ is a bit racist, because we are immersed in it. Eric Foner,(via LGM) in his discussion of Coates’ previously mentioned article, explains how Obama’s notion of political change is influenced by that same environment, which is to say that it is ‘racist’.
Debs understood that movements, not just political leaders, make social change possible. Obama has never really learned that lesson. To be sure, he sought to cultivate an identification with history by embracing the civil-rights movement, though this is hardly a controversial stance at a time when Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday is a national holiday and even Glenn Beck claims his legacy. But even then, Obama embraced a sanitized version in which the movement represents a fulfillment of basic American ideals, not the unfulfilled “revolution of values” that King hoped to see. Obama doesn’t invoke the radical King who spoke of “democratic socialism,” launched the Poor People’s Campaign, and supported the antiwar movement.
Some might freak at the notion that Obama is ‘racist’, which gives one a sense of the problem with the term, in that a lot of people view it as an active worldview that sets about oppressing minorities. But ‘racist’ he is because he has to modulate everything he does in order to not fall afoul of notions floating around in the political zeitgeist. ‘Racist’ means that he had to portray himself about the fray and whitewash (there’s a term) serious problems we have. And even when he offhandedly observes that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon Martin, he gets a measure and a half of shit.
The power of the term ‘racist’ is what gives McT a conniption fit every time he takes a momentary break from his lawyering. This is what has Marty claim that people just like their own kind, because he was made to feel uncomfortable at a party a black coworker invited him to once. The fact that receiving that infinitesimal miniscule dose of the same shit that black people in the US receive every day of their lives has him busily rationalizing away any notion that racism is a problem suggests that the mere accusation of racism is so toxic that we make sure that everything connected to us and ours can’t ever be remotely linked to it. Great that we all abhor it, but not so good that we can’t see it when it is sitting in front of us.
Racism, at least as I understand it, is not simply the active pressing of a view that some races are inherently less worthy than others, it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you. It’s shitty, I know, to be racist just because you are immersed in it, but that is the way cultural influences are: To get away from them, you have to cut yourself from almost everything else you know.
To return to discussing racism…
Good thing-We’ve made racism such a toxic notion that everyone, especially conservatives, run squealing when it is pointed out that something they support, think or do could be classified as racist.
Bad thing-Because it’s such a loaded term, it becomes the equivalent of a nuclear device that both sides hold ready to lob into the conversation, preventing everyone from having any rational discussion about it and permitting those who do actively hold those views to enter into the conversation (cf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the third)
Like Russell, I think that _everyone_ is a bit racist, because we are immersed in it. Eric Foner,(via LGM) in his discussion of Coates’ previously mentioned article, explains how Obama’s notion of political change is influenced by that same environment, which is to say that it is ‘racist’.
Debs understood that movements, not just political leaders, make social change possible. Obama has never really learned that lesson. To be sure, he sought to cultivate an identification with history by embracing the civil-rights movement, though this is hardly a controversial stance at a time when Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday is a national holiday and even Glenn Beck claims his legacy. But even then, Obama embraced a sanitized version in which the movement represents a fulfillment of basic American ideals, not the unfulfilled “revolution of values” that King hoped to see. Obama doesn’t invoke the radical King who spoke of “democratic socialism,” launched the Poor People’s Campaign, and supported the antiwar movement.
Some might freak at the notion that Obama is ‘racist’, which gives one a sense of the problem with the term, in that a lot of people view it as an active worldview that sets about oppressing minorities. But ‘racist’ he is because he has to modulate everything he does in order to not fall afoul of notions floating around in the political zeitgeist. ‘Racist’ means that he had to portray himself about the fray and whitewash (there’s a term) serious problems we have. And even when he offhandedly observes that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon Martin, he gets a measure and a half of shit.
The power of the term ‘racist’ is what gives McT a conniption fit every time he takes a momentary break from his lawyering. This is what has Marty claim that people just like their own kind, because he was made to feel uncomfortable at a party a black coworker invited him to once. The fact that receiving that infinitesimal miniscule dose of the same shit that black people in the US receive every day of their lives has him busily rationalizing away any notion that racism is a problem suggests that the mere accusation of racism is so toxic that we make sure that everything connected to us and ours can’t ever be remotely linked to it. Great that we all abhor it, but not so good that we can’t see it when it is sitting in front of us.
Racism, at least as I understand it, is not simply the active pressing of a view that some races are inherently less worthy than others, it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you. It’s shitty, I know, to be racist just because you are immersed in it, but that is the way cultural influences are: To get away from them, you have to cut yourself from almost everything else you know.
And of course, right after I post this, I get this from a friend who is working at the NYTimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004818663/peanut-butter-jelly-and-racism.html
which has a different take on it.
And of course, right after I post this, I get this from a friend who is working at the NYTimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004818663/peanut-butter-jelly-and-racism.html
which has a different take on it.
And of course, right after I post this, I get this from a friend who is working at the NYTimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004818663/peanut-butter-jelly-and-racism.html
which has a different take on it.
lj’s 6:59 eloquently summarizes, exactly, my own thoughts.
lj’s 6:59 eloquently summarizes, exactly, my own thoughts.
lj’s 6:59 eloquently summarizes, exactly, my own thoughts.
Okay, this thread is all over the place, so I am jumping in. Racism plus political tribalism explains the difference between our reactions to Yemen and, say, the terrorist attack on Paris.
It’s not pure racism, though, because one could also compare the American reactions to Aleppo in 2016 to Gaza in 2014. Almost identical tactics, though the terrorists in East Aleppo are much more effective in killing civilians in West Aleppo than the terrorists in Gaza were at killing Israeli civilians. The “moderates” in Syria are much like Hamas. Islamic Jihad is like Isis. Netanyahu is like Assad, though Putin is maybe a better analogy. His outside arms suppliers and supporters are playing the role of Putin, except we didn’t participate directly.
So it is more political tribalism though racism plays a role. We support the massive crimes in Yemen and Republicans, though the nice responsible mainstream ones line up with Obama, are not mainly responsible. So nobody has an incentive to make a stink about it so long as political tribalism and not issues drive people’s responses.
Okay, this thread is all over the place, so I am jumping in. Racism plus political tribalism explains the difference between our reactions to Yemen and, say, the terrorist attack on Paris.
It’s not pure racism, though, because one could also compare the American reactions to Aleppo in 2016 to Gaza in 2014. Almost identical tactics, though the terrorists in East Aleppo are much more effective in killing civilians in West Aleppo than the terrorists in Gaza were at killing Israeli civilians. The “moderates” in Syria are much like Hamas. Islamic Jihad is like Isis. Netanyahu is like Assad, though Putin is maybe a better analogy. His outside arms suppliers and supporters are playing the role of Putin, except we didn’t participate directly.
So it is more political tribalism though racism plays a role. We support the massive crimes in Yemen and Republicans, though the nice responsible mainstream ones line up with Obama, are not mainly responsible. So nobody has an incentive to make a stink about it so long as political tribalism and not issues drive people’s responses.
Okay, this thread is all over the place, so I am jumping in. Racism plus political tribalism explains the difference between our reactions to Yemen and, say, the terrorist attack on Paris.
It’s not pure racism, though, because one could also compare the American reactions to Aleppo in 2016 to Gaza in 2014. Almost identical tactics, though the terrorists in East Aleppo are much more effective in killing civilians in West Aleppo than the terrorists in Gaza were at killing Israeli civilians. The “moderates” in Syria are much like Hamas. Islamic Jihad is like Isis. Netanyahu is like Assad, though Putin is maybe a better analogy. His outside arms suppliers and supporters are playing the role of Putin, except we didn’t participate directly.
So it is more political tribalism though racism plays a role. We support the massive crimes in Yemen and Republicans, though the nice responsible mainstream ones line up with Obama, are not mainly responsible. So nobody has an incentive to make a stink about it so long as political tribalism and not issues drive people’s responses.
On David Friedman , he is an awful choice, but the peace process has been largely a scam that enables liberal Zionists to feel hopeful. That’s its main effect. Meanwhile we supply Israel with billions to buy weapons from us and in return they expand settlements while we make disapproving noises. Nobody believed any of it, except maybe John Kerry for some reason.
Friedman breaks with the etiquette, so things are likely to explode more quickly than before. It is going to become very hard to deny that Netanyahu’s Israel is a lot like Trumpian America. . But the idea that the US was going to be an honest broker should have died years ago.
On David Friedman , he is an awful choice, but the peace process has been largely a scam that enables liberal Zionists to feel hopeful. That’s its main effect. Meanwhile we supply Israel with billions to buy weapons from us and in return they expand settlements while we make disapproving noises. Nobody believed any of it, except maybe John Kerry for some reason.
Friedman breaks with the etiquette, so things are likely to explode more quickly than before. It is going to become very hard to deny that Netanyahu’s Israel is a lot like Trumpian America. . But the idea that the US was going to be an honest broker should have died years ago.
On David Friedman , he is an awful choice, but the peace process has been largely a scam that enables liberal Zionists to feel hopeful. That’s its main effect. Meanwhile we supply Israel with billions to buy weapons from us and in return they expand settlements while we make disapproving noises. Nobody believed any of it, except maybe John Kerry for some reason.
Friedman breaks with the etiquette, so things are likely to explode more quickly than before. It is going to become very hard to deny that Netanyahu’s Israel is a lot like Trumpian America. . But the idea that the US was going to be an honest broker should have died years ago.
Donald: well said. Alas. <sigh>
Donald: well said. Alas. <sigh>
Donald: well said. Alas. <sigh>
Oh, and Ugh, thanks for that (thoroughly depressing albeit unsurprising) read; you’ve not posted it before. As well as the thumbnail advice. I’ve always been convinced that if I follow through with this, private practice would be at most something I’d aim to be a transitional step, if even.
McK, thanks for the thumbnail advice as well. The warmer climes is currently making the case for itself, as dear, beloved OH was at or slightly below 0 Friday, rainy 40s yesterday, and back to snow and low-single-digit lows today…
Oh, and Ugh, thanks for that (thoroughly depressing albeit unsurprising) read; you’ve not posted it before. As well as the thumbnail advice. I’ve always been convinced that if I follow through with this, private practice would be at most something I’d aim to be a transitional step, if even.
McK, thanks for the thumbnail advice as well. The warmer climes is currently making the case for itself, as dear, beloved OH was at or slightly below 0 Friday, rainy 40s yesterday, and back to snow and low-single-digit lows today…
Oh, and Ugh, thanks for that (thoroughly depressing albeit unsurprising) read; you’ve not posted it before. As well as the thumbnail advice. I’ve always been convinced that if I follow through with this, private practice would be at most something I’d aim to be a transitional step, if even.
McK, thanks for the thumbnail advice as well. The warmer climes is currently making the case for itself, as dear, beloved OH was at or slightly below 0 Friday, rainy 40s yesterday, and back to snow and low-single-digit lows today…
Just a technical note… the archipelagoes in the Southwest and West Coast are geographically smaller than they look on this map because of the large to very large county sizes. San Bernardino County in California, shown in solid blue, is larger than Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined. The heavily populated SW corner of the county is Democratic; the much larger rural area is Republican. Given the vote split — Hillary 53/42 — the rural area almost certainly went for Trump.
Just a technical note… the archipelagoes in the Southwest and West Coast are geographically smaller than they look on this map because of the large to very large county sizes. San Bernardino County in California, shown in solid blue, is larger than Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined. The heavily populated SW corner of the county is Democratic; the much larger rural area is Republican. Given the vote split — Hillary 53/42 — the rural area almost certainly went for Trump.
Just a technical note… the archipelagoes in the Southwest and West Coast are geographically smaller than they look on this map because of the large to very large county sizes. San Bernardino County in California, shown in solid blue, is larger than Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined. The heavily populated SW corner of the county is Democratic; the much larger rural area is Republican. Given the vote split — Hillary 53/42 — the rural area almost certainly went for Trump.
Thanks NV.
On the subject of trying to convert people this was discussed several years ago in global warming blogs in connection with the “backfire effect”.
https://skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-4-Worldview-Backfire-Effect.html
You can find other links if you google global warming backfire effect.
The effect is that if you merely give facts on an issue it will cause ideologues to double down on their original position. If you want to persuade conservatives, say, on, say, global warming, you do not want to go all Naomi Klein on them and say this shows capitalism will destroy the planet. You couch the problem and the solution in terms that, as much as possible, fit into their belief system.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
In real life I keep that in mind. In blog comment sections I have occasionally employed this in other contexts, but normally my own pride or arrogance gets in the way.
Thanks NV.
On the subject of trying to convert people this was discussed several years ago in global warming blogs in connection with the “backfire effect”.
https://skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-4-Worldview-Backfire-Effect.html
You can find other links if you google global warming backfire effect.
The effect is that if you merely give facts on an issue it will cause ideologues to double down on their original position. If you want to persuade conservatives, say, on, say, global warming, you do not want to go all Naomi Klein on them and say this shows capitalism will destroy the planet. You couch the problem and the solution in terms that, as much as possible, fit into their belief system.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
In real life I keep that in mind. In blog comment sections I have occasionally employed this in other contexts, but normally my own pride or arrogance gets in the way.
Thanks NV.
On the subject of trying to convert people this was discussed several years ago in global warming blogs in connection with the “backfire effect”.
https://skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-Part-4-Worldview-Backfire-Effect.html
You can find other links if you google global warming backfire effect.
The effect is that if you merely give facts on an issue it will cause ideologues to double down on their original position. If you want to persuade conservatives, say, on, say, global warming, you do not want to go all Naomi Klein on them and say this shows capitalism will destroy the planet. You couch the problem and the solution in terms that, as much as possible, fit into their belief system.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
In real life I keep that in mind. In blog comment sections I have occasionally employed this in other contexts, but normally my own pride or arrogance gets in the way.
Interesting and useful link, Donald. Thanks.
Interesting and useful link, Donald. Thanks.
Interesting and useful link, Donald. Thanks.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you.
That seems to be saying that, if those around you are racist, you are necessarily racist. Even if you do no more than recognize that reality (and maybe refrain from setting people off) — i.e. you do what Obama has mostly done.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you.
That seems to be saying that, if those around you are racist, you are necessarily racist. Even if you do no more than recognize that reality (and maybe refrain from setting people off) — i.e. you do what Obama has mostly done.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you.
That seems to be saying that, if those around you are racist, you are necessarily racist. Even if you do no more than recognize that reality (and maybe refrain from setting people off) — i.e. you do what Obama has mostly done.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
????
Depending on how you measure, capitalism has been around for somewhere between 250 and 500 years.
Humans have been living in settled communities for something like 10,000 years.
There isn’t anything fated about capitalism. It’s just a way to organize economic life.
To the degree that it’s not adaptive, it will die out.
Hopefully, threatening the ability for humans to live on the planet will be seen as ‘not adaptive’.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
????
Depending on how you measure, capitalism has been around for somewhere between 250 and 500 years.
Humans have been living in settled communities for something like 10,000 years.
There isn’t anything fated about capitalism. It’s just a way to organize economic life.
To the degree that it’s not adaptive, it will die out.
Hopefully, threatening the ability for humans to live on the planet will be seen as ‘not adaptive’.
Of course if capitalism is going to destroy the planet then we are screwed.
????
Depending on how you measure, capitalism has been around for somewhere between 250 and 500 years.
Humans have been living in settled communities for something like 10,000 years.
There isn’t anything fated about capitalism. It’s just a way to organize economic life.
To the degree that it’s not adaptive, it will die out.
Hopefully, threatening the ability for humans to live on the planet will be seen as ‘not adaptive’.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult.
Here is my pocket definition of racism.
If your stance toward other people is informed by the color of their skin, that’s racism.
Full stop.
Think of them differently, make different assumptions about them, react to them differently, treat them differently, talk about them differently, whatever.
“X” differently, based on the color of skin, is racism. I’m not sure what other name you could possibly give it.
The reason I think it’s useful or even necessary to define it that broadly is *specifically because* it opens the door to talk about it more easily.
Because, construed that broadly, we pretty much all participate in it. Skin color as a category of thinking about people is profoundly baked into our culture. Maybe in all cultures, I don’t know. I have some reason to doubt that that is true, but it’s sort of beside the point.
Because it *is* baked into the culture I live in.
What I say about racism is that there’s not a lot of room for moral superiority, and there’s not a lot of need for defensiveness. What there is a lot of need for is a recognition that it is a factor in how we all think and behave, and that the net result of that tends to be extremely injurious to people whose skin is dark.
It’s one of our national profoundly bad habits. It would help a hell of a lot if we could get over it. We won’t get over it if we keep pretending it’s not there.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult.
Here is my pocket definition of racism.
If your stance toward other people is informed by the color of their skin, that’s racism.
Full stop.
Think of them differently, make different assumptions about them, react to them differently, treat them differently, talk about them differently, whatever.
“X” differently, based on the color of skin, is racism. I’m not sure what other name you could possibly give it.
The reason I think it’s useful or even necessary to define it that broadly is *specifically because* it opens the door to talk about it more easily.
Because, construed that broadly, we pretty much all participate in it. Skin color as a category of thinking about people is profoundly baked into our culture. Maybe in all cultures, I don’t know. I have some reason to doubt that that is true, but it’s sort of beside the point.
Because it *is* baked into the culture I live in.
What I say about racism is that there’s not a lot of room for moral superiority, and there’s not a lot of need for defensiveness. What there is a lot of need for is a recognition that it is a factor in how we all think and behave, and that the net result of that tends to be extremely injurious to people whose skin is dark.
It’s one of our national profoundly bad habits. It would help a hell of a lot if we could get over it. We won’t get over it if we keep pretending it’s not there.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult.
Here is my pocket definition of racism.
If your stance toward other people is informed by the color of their skin, that’s racism.
Full stop.
Think of them differently, make different assumptions about them, react to them differently, treat them differently, talk about them differently, whatever.
“X” differently, based on the color of skin, is racism. I’m not sure what other name you could possibly give it.
The reason I think it’s useful or even necessary to define it that broadly is *specifically because* it opens the door to talk about it more easily.
Because, construed that broadly, we pretty much all participate in it. Skin color as a category of thinking about people is profoundly baked into our culture. Maybe in all cultures, I don’t know. I have some reason to doubt that that is true, but it’s sort of beside the point.
Because it *is* baked into the culture I live in.
What I say about racism is that there’s not a lot of room for moral superiority, and there’s not a lot of need for defensiveness. What there is a lot of need for is a recognition that it is a factor in how we all think and behave, and that the net result of that tends to be extremely injurious to people whose skin is dark.
It’s one of our national profoundly bad habits. It would help a hell of a lot if we could get over it. We won’t get over it if we keep pretending it’s not there.
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
Klein says that capitalism is the root problem.
https://thischangeseverything.org/book/
She thinks this and also thinks we can all get together and change everything about how society works. There are economists who strongly disagree and think we can save the planet without the drastic societal changes. Carbon taxes and so forth. The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax. Which is depressing, but if that is how people are then we have to deal with it.
If Klein is right, though, it seems unlikely that we can get massive societal changes done in time. We don’t have much time
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
Klein says that capitalism is the root problem.
https://thischangeseverything.org/book/
She thinks this and also thinks we can all get together and change everything about how society works. There are economists who strongly disagree and think we can save the planet without the drastic societal changes. Carbon taxes and so forth. The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax. Which is depressing, but if that is how people are then we have to deal with it.
If Klein is right, though, it seems unlikely that we can get massive societal changes done in time. We don’t have much time
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
Klein says that capitalism is the root problem.
https://thischangeseverything.org/book/
She thinks this and also thinks we can all get together and change everything about how society works. There are economists who strongly disagree and think we can save the planet without the drastic societal changes. Carbon taxes and so forth. The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax. Which is depressing, but if that is how people are then we have to deal with it.
If Klein is right, though, it seems unlikely that we can get massive societal changes done in time. We don’t have much time
Clarifying, Klein thinks we have to do much more than impose carbon taxes or offsets or whatever.
Clarifying, Klein thinks we have to do much more than impose carbon taxes or offsets or whatever.
Clarifying, Klein thinks we have to do much more than impose carbon taxes or offsets or whatever.
On the timescale, this is a link I provided a few weeks back
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/
On the timescale, this is a link I provided a few weeks back
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/
On the timescale, this is a link I provided a few weeks back
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/trump-carbon-and-the-paris-agreement/
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
I don’t if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with either of you. I haven’t read anything by Klein, I just sort of know about her by reputation, so I have no idea what her position is, really.
What I think about human institutions of all kinds is that they are, primarily, adaptive responses to conditions.
When they stop being useful as an adaptation to conditions, they die out. Or, change sufficiently that they are once again adaptively useful.
We aren’t strictly hard-wired in terms of social organization.
There are societies – ours notably among them – that seem to be committed to capitalism as a way to organize our economic life. We valorize it, we see it as a good in and of itself.
If that ends up hurting us enough, we’ll stop doing that. Or we’ll get in our own way, and in the world’s way, enough that we’ll basically render ourselves irrelevant. An annoying vestige.
If capitalism per se is driving the bus over the cliff, I’m not sure the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and do nothing about it.
Especially if “the rest of the world” includes natural systems that extend well beyond human economies.
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
I don’t if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with either of you. I haven’t read anything by Klein, I just sort of know about her by reputation, so I have no idea what her position is, really.
What I think about human institutions of all kinds is that they are, primarily, adaptive responses to conditions.
When they stop being useful as an adaptation to conditions, they die out. Or, change sufficiently that they are once again adaptively useful.
We aren’t strictly hard-wired in terms of social organization.
There are societies – ours notably among them – that seem to be committed to capitalism as a way to organize our economic life. We valorize it, we see it as a good in and of itself.
If that ends up hurting us enough, we’ll stop doing that. Or we’ll get in our own way, and in the world’s way, enough that we’ll basically render ourselves irrelevant. An annoying vestige.
If capitalism per se is driving the bus over the cliff, I’m not sure the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and do nothing about it.
Especially if “the rest of the world” includes natural systems that extend well beyond human economies.
I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with Naomi Klein or me, Russell.
I don’t if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with either of you. I haven’t read anything by Klein, I just sort of know about her by reputation, so I have no idea what her position is, really.
What I think about human institutions of all kinds is that they are, primarily, adaptive responses to conditions.
When they stop being useful as an adaptation to conditions, they die out. Or, change sufficiently that they are once again adaptively useful.
We aren’t strictly hard-wired in terms of social organization.
There are societies – ours notably among them – that seem to be committed to capitalism as a way to organize our economic life. We valorize it, we see it as a good in and of itself.
If that ends up hurting us enough, we’ll stop doing that. Or we’ll get in our own way, and in the world’s way, enough that we’ll basically render ourselves irrelevant. An annoying vestige.
If capitalism per se is driving the bus over the cliff, I’m not sure the rest of the world is going to sit idly by and do nothing about it.
Especially if “the rest of the world” includes natural systems that extend well beyond human economies.
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings. That is, you can have capitalism with or without racism. And you can have racism with or without capitalism.
Conflating the two, simply because you dislike both, is both wrong and counterproductive for any attempt to get rid of, or even just ameliorate, the problems of either.
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings. That is, you can have capitalism with or without racism. And you can have racism with or without capitalism.
Conflating the two, simply because you dislike both, is both wrong and counterproductive for any attempt to get rid of, or even just ameliorate, the problems of either.
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings. That is, you can have capitalism with or without racism. And you can have racism with or without capitalism.
Conflating the two, simply because you dislike both, is both wrong and counterproductive for any attempt to get rid of, or even just ameliorate, the problems of either.
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position. I like it. I am reasonably sure you will like it. If this is what it takes to avoid catastrophe, well, it seems politically difficult to get from here to there.
For one thing, she admits and embraces the conservative fear that taking climate change seriously will require almost the whole left wing agenda on the economy and the environment to be imposed. Which will be a hard sell, given the backfire effect.
https://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position. I like it. I am reasonably sure you will like it. If this is what it takes to avoid catastrophe, well, it seems politically difficult to get from here to there.
For one thing, she admits and embraces the conservative fear that taking climate change seriously will require almost the whole left wing agenda on the economy and the environment to be imposed. Which will be a hard sell, given the backfire effect.
https://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position. I like it. I am reasonably sure you will like it. If this is what it takes to avoid catastrophe, well, it seems politically difficult to get from here to there.
For one thing, she admits and embraces the conservative fear that taking climate change seriously will require almost the whole left wing agenda on the economy and the environment to be imposed. Which will be a hard sell, given the backfire effect.
https://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings.
Don’t know if this was directed to me, but if so I haven’t done a good job of explaining myself.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here wj. The two things are distinct.
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings.
Don’t know if this was directed to me, but if so I haven’t done a good job of explaining myself.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here wj. The two things are distinct.
It seems to me that racism and its problems are orthogonal to capitalism and its shortcomings.
Don’t know if this was directed to me, but if so I haven’t done a good job of explaining myself.
I completely agree with what you’ve said here wj. The two things are distinct.
I wasn’t connecting capitalism and racism, though there are historians who say they are connected. I am not very familiar with their work.
On climate change, the problem is that on the one hand the backfire effect means that people are strongly motivated to deny facts and/ or science that they see as threats to teur belief system and on the other hand, Naomi Klein says that the conservatives are right–any solution to global warming is a direct threat to their belief system, or the free market valorizatin that is called conservative these days. So how would you appeal to conservatives? At least some need to be won over. So it would be nice if Klein were overstating things. But she might be right.
I wasn’t connecting capitalism and racism, though there are historians who say they are connected. I am not very familiar with their work.
On climate change, the problem is that on the one hand the backfire effect means that people are strongly motivated to deny facts and/ or science that they see as threats to teur belief system and on the other hand, Naomi Klein says that the conservatives are right–any solution to global warming is a direct threat to their belief system, or the free market valorizatin that is called conservative these days. So how would you appeal to conservatives? At least some need to be won over. So it would be nice if Klein were overstating things. But she might be right.
I wasn’t connecting capitalism and racism, though there are historians who say they are connected. I am not very familiar with their work.
On climate change, the problem is that on the one hand the backfire effect means that people are strongly motivated to deny facts and/ or science that they see as threats to teur belief system and on the other hand, Naomi Klein says that the conservatives are right–any solution to global warming is a direct threat to their belief system, or the free market valorizatin that is called conservative these days. So how would you appeal to conservatives? At least some need to be won over. So it would be nice if Klein were overstating things. But she might be right.
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position
Thanks for sharing this Donald. I am about half-way through it.
I have a number of thoughts.
First, it’s profoundly depressing to me that what should be a basic scientific and non-partisan question ends up getting caught up in stupid bullshit culture-war politics. It makes everything 100 times more complicated to even think about, let alone to act on.
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It *is* true that, if the common understanding of the problem is correct and we need to be putting less carbon in the atmosphere, we are also going to have to make a lot of other adjustments in how we do things. A lot – most – of our cultural infrastructure assumes the use of fossil fuels. Transportation, power generation, how we heat our homes, the basic materials we use in manufacturing – all would be impacted.
That means addressing the problem would be *complicated*, and would require *changes*.
It also means that entities whose value is comprised of fossil materials still in the ground would be worth a lot less.
To put a point on it, that would probably cost me, personally, many many dollars. This is actually a question my wife and I have considered – would we be willing to take the kind of haircut that would follow from, for instance, having the book value of the oil sector be reduced enormously?
We would, other folks might not be so willing.
So, there are very large impediments to actually doing what would need to be done to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Those are certainly all related to *money*. They are not inherently related to *capitalism*.
There is another whole issue of whether the government should have any role in any of this. Which strikes me as a gob-stoppingly stupid question, because government is involved in every thing we do. Whether we want to acknowledge that or not.
A world in which Rex Tillerson is a candidate for Sec of State is not a world in which government has a hands-off relationship with the energy sector.
Fundamentally, the issue comes down to the fact that making the kind of changes that would be required to put less carbon in the air are likely to be a huge PITA and are likely to cost a lot of people money, in some cases a little, in some cases a whole lot.
The upside is that, were we to make those changes, the entrepreneurial opportunities for people to also *make* a lot of money would be enormous. Those opportunities would not be available to lazy people, people who currently enjoy and want to maintain a position that is on track to make them stupendously wealthy. But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Is it?
There are a million scenarios in which we might move away from a fossil-fuel dependent culture, and also maintain a capitalist organization of our economy. Folks who are interested in maintaining a capitalist organization of our economy would be wise to be attentive to that.
And, of course, the upside to doing anything about it at all is that we would avoid the enormous costs of responding to the effects of climate change as they occur.
Doing nothing could well be catastrophically expensive. So, there is that.
FWIW, I’m not really that interested in debating whether it really is a thing, or not, anymore. I don’t have the scientific chops, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Polar ice is melting in obvious ways, the CIA DOD and insurance industries all take it extremely seriously, everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
So I just assume it’s a thing, and proceed accordingly.
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position
Thanks for sharing this Donald. I am about half-way through it.
I have a number of thoughts.
First, it’s profoundly depressing to me that what should be a basic scientific and non-partisan question ends up getting caught up in stupid bullshit culture-war politics. It makes everything 100 times more complicated to even think about, let alone to act on.
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It *is* true that, if the common understanding of the problem is correct and we need to be putting less carbon in the atmosphere, we are also going to have to make a lot of other adjustments in how we do things. A lot – most – of our cultural infrastructure assumes the use of fossil fuels. Transportation, power generation, how we heat our homes, the basic materials we use in manufacturing – all would be impacted.
That means addressing the problem would be *complicated*, and would require *changes*.
It also means that entities whose value is comprised of fossil materials still in the ground would be worth a lot less.
To put a point on it, that would probably cost me, personally, many many dollars. This is actually a question my wife and I have considered – would we be willing to take the kind of haircut that would follow from, for instance, having the book value of the oil sector be reduced enormously?
We would, other folks might not be so willing.
So, there are very large impediments to actually doing what would need to be done to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Those are certainly all related to *money*. They are not inherently related to *capitalism*.
There is another whole issue of whether the government should have any role in any of this. Which strikes me as a gob-stoppingly stupid question, because government is involved in every thing we do. Whether we want to acknowledge that or not.
A world in which Rex Tillerson is a candidate for Sec of State is not a world in which government has a hands-off relationship with the energy sector.
Fundamentally, the issue comes down to the fact that making the kind of changes that would be required to put less carbon in the air are likely to be a huge PITA and are likely to cost a lot of people money, in some cases a little, in some cases a whole lot.
The upside is that, were we to make those changes, the entrepreneurial opportunities for people to also *make* a lot of money would be enormous. Those opportunities would not be available to lazy people, people who currently enjoy and want to maintain a position that is on track to make them stupendously wealthy. But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Is it?
There are a million scenarios in which we might move away from a fossil-fuel dependent culture, and also maintain a capitalist organization of our economy. Folks who are interested in maintaining a capitalist organization of our economy would be wise to be attentive to that.
And, of course, the upside to doing anything about it at all is that we would avoid the enormous costs of responding to the effects of climate change as they occur.
Doing nothing could well be catastrophically expensive. So, there is that.
FWIW, I’m not really that interested in debating whether it really is a thing, or not, anymore. I don’t have the scientific chops, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Polar ice is melting in obvious ways, the CIA DOD and insurance industries all take it extremely seriously, everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
So I just assume it’s a thing, and proceed accordingly.
Here is a piece by Klein outlining her position
Thanks for sharing this Donald. I am about half-way through it.
I have a number of thoughts.
First, it’s profoundly depressing to me that what should be a basic scientific and non-partisan question ends up getting caught up in stupid bullshit culture-war politics. It makes everything 100 times more complicated to even think about, let alone to act on.
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It *is* true that, if the common understanding of the problem is correct and we need to be putting less carbon in the atmosphere, we are also going to have to make a lot of other adjustments in how we do things. A lot – most – of our cultural infrastructure assumes the use of fossil fuels. Transportation, power generation, how we heat our homes, the basic materials we use in manufacturing – all would be impacted.
That means addressing the problem would be *complicated*, and would require *changes*.
It also means that entities whose value is comprised of fossil materials still in the ground would be worth a lot less.
To put a point on it, that would probably cost me, personally, many many dollars. This is actually a question my wife and I have considered – would we be willing to take the kind of haircut that would follow from, for instance, having the book value of the oil sector be reduced enormously?
We would, other folks might not be so willing.
So, there are very large impediments to actually doing what would need to be done to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Those are certainly all related to *money*. They are not inherently related to *capitalism*.
There is another whole issue of whether the government should have any role in any of this. Which strikes me as a gob-stoppingly stupid question, because government is involved in every thing we do. Whether we want to acknowledge that or not.
A world in which Rex Tillerson is a candidate for Sec of State is not a world in which government has a hands-off relationship with the energy sector.
Fundamentally, the issue comes down to the fact that making the kind of changes that would be required to put less carbon in the air are likely to be a huge PITA and are likely to cost a lot of people money, in some cases a little, in some cases a whole lot.
The upside is that, were we to make those changes, the entrepreneurial opportunities for people to also *make* a lot of money would be enormous. Those opportunities would not be available to lazy people, people who currently enjoy and want to maintain a position that is on track to make them stupendously wealthy. But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Is it?
There are a million scenarios in which we might move away from a fossil-fuel dependent culture, and also maintain a capitalist organization of our economy. Folks who are interested in maintaining a capitalist organization of our economy would be wise to be attentive to that.
And, of course, the upside to doing anything about it at all is that we would avoid the enormous costs of responding to the effects of climate change as they occur.
Doing nothing could well be catastrophically expensive. So, there is that.
FWIW, I’m not really that interested in debating whether it really is a thing, or not, anymore. I don’t have the scientific chops, I have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Polar ice is melting in obvious ways, the CIA DOD and insurance industries all take it extremely seriously, everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
So I just assume it’s a thing, and proceed accordingly.
everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
That or have been convinced by those with such interests that it is a culture war thing, rather than a real thing.
Unfortunately, way too much of our political discussions seem to have been caught up in the tribalism/culture wars framework. To the point that indisputable scientific facts are ignored if they are inconvenient . . . or can be made to seem part of the framework by those to whom they are inconvenient.
everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
That or have been convinced by those with such interests that it is a culture war thing, rather than a real thing.
Unfortunately, way too much of our political discussions seem to have been caught up in the tribalism/culture wars framework. To the point that indisputable scientific facts are ignored if they are inconvenient . . . or can be made to seem part of the framework by those to whom they are inconvenient.
everyone almost without exception who seems skeptical about it also seems to have some financial connection to folks who will make a shitload of money from ignoring it.
That or have been convinced by those with such interests that it is a culture war thing, rather than a real thing.
Unfortunately, way too much of our political discussions seem to have been caught up in the tribalism/culture wars framework. To the point that indisputable scientific facts are ignored if they are inconvenient . . . or can be made to seem part of the framework by those to whom they are inconvenient.
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is not. Individual capitalist systems very often are. It is in the interest of a problematic amount of powerful lazy people and rentiers to conflate the former with the latter to whatever degree they can.
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is not. Individual capitalist systems very often are. It is in the interest of a problematic amount of powerful lazy people and rentiers to conflate the former with the latter to whatever degree they can.
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is not. Individual capitalist systems very often are. It is in the interest of a problematic amount of powerful lazy people and rentiers to conflate the former with the latter to whatever degree they can.
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
things have moved to capitalism and Klein, and russell said what I would have said, but I can’t resist this Terry Pratchett quote from Small Gods:
Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,” said Vorbis. “So I understand,” said the Tyrant. “I imagine that fish have no word for water.”
It’s great that we recognize, unlike the Omians, that there is something called racism. What is not so good is that we don’t realize that we are swimming in it. It also seems telling that we focus on racism, and don’t even give a nod (at least in this thread) that sexism is as a big an issue (and something else we swim in and never notice)
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
things have moved to capitalism and Klein, and russell said what I would have said, but I can’t resist this Terry Pratchett quote from Small Gods:
Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,” said Vorbis. “So I understand,” said the Tyrant. “I imagine that fish have no word for water.”
It’s great that we recognize, unlike the Omians, that there is something called racism. What is not so good is that we don’t realize that we are swimming in it. It also seems telling that we focus on racism, and don’t even give a nod (at least in this thread) that sexism is as a big an issue (and something else we swim in and never notice)
I would say rather that construing the term that broadly is part of what makes discussing the issue so difficult. It isn’t evidence of racism just because you don’t seize every possible opportunity to denounce the racism around you. But that is what comes thru, at least to me, from the quote.
things have moved to capitalism and Klein, and russell said what I would have said, but I can’t resist this Terry Pratchett quote from Small Gods:
Slave is an Ephebian word. In Om we have no word for slave,” said Vorbis. “So I understand,” said the Tyrant. “I imagine that fish have no word for water.”
It’s great that we recognize, unlike the Omians, that there is something called racism. What is not so good is that we don’t realize that we are swimming in it. It also seems telling that we focus on racism, and don’t even give a nod (at least in this thread) that sexism is as a big an issue (and something else we swim in and never notice)
On Klein, basically what Russell said; she is right on climate change, but also pushing a political agenda completely orthogonal to it. Which if anything exacerbates the problem.
In any event, it’s a global problem, so the idea that there might be a political solution seems fanciful.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
Whether they can be developed fast enough to effectively obsolete fossil fuels simply by price competition, in time to prevent massive disruption to global civilisation (massive disruption to global ecology is I think already baked in) is an open question.
On Klein, basically what Russell said; she is right on climate change, but also pushing a political agenda completely orthogonal to it. Which if anything exacerbates the problem.
In any event, it’s a global problem, so the idea that there might be a political solution seems fanciful.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
Whether they can be developed fast enough to effectively obsolete fossil fuels simply by price competition, in time to prevent massive disruption to global civilisation (massive disruption to global ecology is I think already baked in) is an open question.
On Klein, basically what Russell said; she is right on climate change, but also pushing a political agenda completely orthogonal to it. Which if anything exacerbates the problem.
In any event, it’s a global problem, so the idea that there might be a political solution seems fanciful.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
Whether they can be developed fast enough to effectively obsolete fossil fuels simply by price competition, in time to prevent massive disruption to global civilisation (massive disruption to global ecology is I think already baked in) is an open question.
Yes, lj, your quote (which I have read very recently here or somewhere else, it’s deja vu all over again) reminds me that in one of my run-ins with McKT when he rejected and ridiculed the concept of White Male Privilege, I quoted the David Foster Wallace story about the two fish swimming along, who when a wise old fish passes them swimming the other way and greets them with “Hello boys, how’s the water?” keep swimming silently until one asks the other “What the hell is water?”.
People who have been the beneficiaries of the privilege all their lives find it hard to conceptualise the life-sustaining medium they swim in, and take for granted.
Yes, lj, your quote (which I have read very recently here or somewhere else, it’s deja vu all over again) reminds me that in one of my run-ins with McKT when he rejected and ridiculed the concept of White Male Privilege, I quoted the David Foster Wallace story about the two fish swimming along, who when a wise old fish passes them swimming the other way and greets them with “Hello boys, how’s the water?” keep swimming silently until one asks the other “What the hell is water?”.
People who have been the beneficiaries of the privilege all their lives find it hard to conceptualise the life-sustaining medium they swim in, and take for granted.
Yes, lj, your quote (which I have read very recently here or somewhere else, it’s deja vu all over again) reminds me that in one of my run-ins with McKT when he rejected and ridiculed the concept of White Male Privilege, I quoted the David Foster Wallace story about the two fish swimming along, who when a wise old fish passes them swimming the other way and greets them with “Hello boys, how’s the water?” keep swimming silently until one asks the other “What the hell is water?”.
People who have been the beneficiaries of the privilege all their lives find it hard to conceptualise the life-sustaining medium they swim in, and take for granted.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
which is why picking “winners and losers” on the basis of a company’s promise of innovating renewal energy, rather than doing so on the basis of arbitrary “deals,” was kind of a nice thought. Seems quaint.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
which is why picking “winners and losers” on the basis of a company’s promise of innovating renewal energy, rather than doing so on the basis of arbitrary “deals,” was kind of a nice thought. Seems quaint.
As far as the technologies required to fix the problem (without crashing global living standards) are concerned, I’m an optimist.
which is why picking “winners and losers” on the basis of a company’s promise of innovating renewal energy, rather than doing so on the basis of arbitrary “deals,” was kind of a nice thought. Seems quaint.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you…
Is anyone really claiming that ?
FWIW, I do not recognise race as a valid concept. It is a deeply pernicious cultural construct or set of constructs, whose existence and effects I cannot deny, though.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you…
Is anyone really claiming that ?
FWIW, I do not recognise race as a valid concept. It is a deeply pernicious cultural construct or set of constructs, whose existence and effects I cannot deny, though.
it is the ridiculous notion that somehow, you remain totally untouched by it despite the fact that it is all around you…
Is anyone really claiming that ?
FWIW, I do not recognise race as a valid concept. It is a deeply pernicious cultural construct or set of constructs, whose existence and effects I cannot deny, though.
…without crashing global living standards…
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor? Colorado still full of Japanese tourists each summer? Do the US and Canada get to continue energy use at something like their current levels (Canada slightly higher per-capita than the US)?
…without crashing global living standards…
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor? Colorado still full of Japanese tourists each summer? Do the US and Canada get to continue energy use at something like their current levels (Canada slightly higher per-capita than the US)?
…without crashing global living standards…
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor? Colorado still full of Japanese tourists each summer? Do the US and Canada get to continue energy use at something like their current levels (Canada slightly higher per-capita than the US)?
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor?
No. If anything, development of low carbon technologies will be a global leveller (hopefully upward). Developed economies can extract resources from overseas, but solar energy (for example) will benefit the locale in which it is generated.
Really cheap solar is a little way off, as is storage, but the two together will be transformative. As for future energy usage, compare insolation figures with current usage: the US could derive its entire current energy consumption from a couple of its large deserts (technology permitting).
Low carbon long distance flight at prices competitive with fossil fuels is a tough problem.
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor?
No. If anything, development of low carbon technologies will be a global leveller (hopefully upward). Developed economies can extract resources from overseas, but solar energy (for example) will benefit the locale in which it is generated.
Really cheap solar is a little way off, as is storage, but the two together will be transformative. As for future energy usage, compare insolation figures with current usage: the US could derive its entire current energy consumption from a couple of its large deserts (technology permitting).
Low carbon long distance flight at prices competitive with fossil fuels is a tough problem.
I’d be interested in an expansion of what you mean by this. Do India, China, and Africa have to stay relatively poor?
No. If anything, development of low carbon technologies will be a global leveller (hopefully upward). Developed economies can extract resources from overseas, but solar energy (for example) will benefit the locale in which it is generated.
Really cheap solar is a little way off, as is storage, but the two together will be transformative. As for future energy usage, compare insolation figures with current usage: the US could derive its entire current energy consumption from a couple of its large deserts (technology permitting).
Low carbon long distance flight at prices competitive with fossil fuels is a tough problem.
Donald: The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax.
Tongue only half in cheek, I suggest that “offset” is as much a trigger word for “conservatives” as that near-obscenity, “tax”. “Offset” is so politically correct, don’t you know.
Now, “price” is a manly, robust, capitalist sort of word. “Price” would be more effective IMHO, but naturally I can’t speak for “conservatives”.
Of course, any price imposed by government will immediately be branded a tax by “conservatives” anyway, but at least it’s in the free-market lexicon.
It would be simple, operationally, to charge a price for adding CO2 to the atmosphere: set a pre-paid dumping fee of $X/ton on fossil carbon, collect it at the source (from the extractor or importer), and immediately pay it out to The People on a per-capita basis.
That last bit is important: if every American gets a check for $Y every month, where
then in the first place it gets harder to call it a “tax on The Economy”, and secondly it gets easier, politically, to make X as high as it needs to be. The per-capita stipulation is of course based on my commie notion that every breathing American person has an equal stake in the atmosphere.
No further “carbon regulation” would be required. The Invisible Hand would take it from there, allocating the “incidence” of the $X/ton among the suppliers of fossil carbon atoms, their customers, and the ultimate consumers, on Free Market principles.
I don’t know how to appeal to “conservatives” in their own dialect any better than that. But I suspect they would still call even a plan as simple as that “socialism” or “tyranny” or “political correctness” or something.
–TP
Donald: The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax.
Tongue only half in cheek, I suggest that “offset” is as much a trigger word for “conservatives” as that near-obscenity, “tax”. “Offset” is so politically correct, don’t you know.
Now, “price” is a manly, robust, capitalist sort of word. “Price” would be more effective IMHO, but naturally I can’t speak for “conservatives”.
Of course, any price imposed by government will immediately be branded a tax by “conservatives” anyway, but at least it’s in the free-market lexicon.
It would be simple, operationally, to charge a price for adding CO2 to the atmosphere: set a pre-paid dumping fee of $X/ton on fossil carbon, collect it at the source (from the extractor or importer), and immediately pay it out to The People on a per-capita basis.
That last bit is important: if every American gets a check for $Y every month, where
then in the first place it gets harder to call it a “tax on The Economy”, and secondly it gets easier, politically, to make X as high as it needs to be. The per-capita stipulation is of course based on my commie notion that every breathing American person has an equal stake in the atmosphere.
No further “carbon regulation” would be required. The Invisible Hand would take it from there, allocating the “incidence” of the $X/ton among the suppliers of fossil carbon atoms, their customers, and the ultimate consumers, on Free Market principles.
I don’t know how to appeal to “conservatives” in their own dialect any better than that. But I suspect they would still call even a plan as simple as that “socialism” or “tyranny” or “political correctness” or something.
–TP
Donald: The link I provided earlier says you are more likely to get conservatives in board if you use a word like offset rather than tax.
Tongue only half in cheek, I suggest that “offset” is as much a trigger word for “conservatives” as that near-obscenity, “tax”. “Offset” is so politically correct, don’t you know.
Now, “price” is a manly, robust, capitalist sort of word. “Price” would be more effective IMHO, but naturally I can’t speak for “conservatives”.
Of course, any price imposed by government will immediately be branded a tax by “conservatives” anyway, but at least it’s in the free-market lexicon.
It would be simple, operationally, to charge a price for adding CO2 to the atmosphere: set a pre-paid dumping fee of $X/ton on fossil carbon, collect it at the source (from the extractor or importer), and immediately pay it out to The People on a per-capita basis.
That last bit is important: if every American gets a check for $Y every month, where
then in the first place it gets harder to call it a “tax on The Economy”, and secondly it gets easier, politically, to make X as high as it needs to be. The per-capita stipulation is of course based on my commie notion that every breathing American person has an equal stake in the atmosphere.
No further “carbon regulation” would be required. The Invisible Hand would take it from there, allocating the “incidence” of the $X/ton among the suppliers of fossil carbon atoms, their customers, and the ultimate consumers, on Free Market principles.
I don’t know how to appeal to “conservatives” in their own dialect any better than that. But I suspect they would still call even a plan as simple as that “socialism” or “tyranny” or “political correctness” or something.
–TP
Naturally, in the short term things might even go backwards, with a combination of very cheap natural gas, and Trump.
Solar and storage will still make relentless incremental efficiency gains, with the possibility of occasional big breakthroughs.
Naturally, in the short term things might even go backwards, with a combination of very cheap natural gas, and Trump.
Solar and storage will still make relentless incremental efficiency gains, with the possibility of occasional big breakthroughs.
Naturally, in the short term things might even go backwards, with a combination of very cheap natural gas, and Trump.
Solar and storage will still make relentless incremental efficiency gains, with the possibility of occasional big breakthroughs.
in the end, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary for people to do one damned thing to address climate change. assuming it’s a thing that needs addressing.
there are only a million species who would thrive quite well in a world sort of like the one we inherited right at the beginning of the Holocene. It was actually pretty hot then.
We might even be one of them. We’re pretty adaptable, the planet has been both warmer and much colder than it is now during our time here.
Lots of other things have happened during our time here, including the entire eradication of some civilizations, in some cases due at least partly by changes in climate and/or the population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied. also mass migrations driving violent clashes between human societies. also epidemics of contagious diseases, which could be more likely in some scenarios of changing climate.
etc. etc. etc.
THings that might be different now compared to historically include the tremendous amount of built infrastructure that might be at risk, the degree to which we get our food from specific areas that aren’t where we live, and the sheer number of people on the planet.
We’ll adapt no matter what, it just might not be so pretty. Whether we have a capitalist economy or not might turn out to be a non-issue.
And ultimately, the jellyfish and cockroaches are always waiting in the wings.
in the end, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary for people to do one damned thing to address climate change. assuming it’s a thing that needs addressing.
there are only a million species who would thrive quite well in a world sort of like the one we inherited right at the beginning of the Holocene. It was actually pretty hot then.
We might even be one of them. We’re pretty adaptable, the planet has been both warmer and much colder than it is now during our time here.
Lots of other things have happened during our time here, including the entire eradication of some civilizations, in some cases due at least partly by changes in climate and/or the population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied. also mass migrations driving violent clashes between human societies. also epidemics of contagious diseases, which could be more likely in some scenarios of changing climate.
etc. etc. etc.
THings that might be different now compared to historically include the tremendous amount of built infrastructure that might be at risk, the degree to which we get our food from specific areas that aren’t where we live, and the sheer number of people on the planet.
We’ll adapt no matter what, it just might not be so pretty. Whether we have a capitalist economy or not might turn out to be a non-issue.
And ultimately, the jellyfish and cockroaches are always waiting in the wings.
in the end, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary for people to do one damned thing to address climate change. assuming it’s a thing that needs addressing.
there are only a million species who would thrive quite well in a world sort of like the one we inherited right at the beginning of the Holocene. It was actually pretty hot then.
We might even be one of them. We’re pretty adaptable, the planet has been both warmer and much colder than it is now during our time here.
Lots of other things have happened during our time here, including the entire eradication of some civilizations, in some cases due at least partly by changes in climate and/or the population exceeding the carrying capacity of the land they occupied. also mass migrations driving violent clashes between human societies. also epidemics of contagious diseases, which could be more likely in some scenarios of changing climate.
etc. etc. etc.
THings that might be different now compared to historically include the tremendous amount of built infrastructure that might be at risk, the degree to which we get our food from specific areas that aren’t where we live, and the sheer number of people on the planet.
We’ll adapt no matter what, it just might not be so pretty. Whether we have a capitalist economy or not might turn out to be a non-issue.
And ultimately, the jellyfish and cockroaches are always waiting in the wings.
@Nigel’s 7:24… The US runs just under 90 kWh per household per day for residential, commercial, industrial and transportation usage. Japan, probably the most efficient of the developed countries, with some geographic advantages, runs about 60% of that — call it 54 kWh per household per day across the full set of demand. I’m willing to argue that no one has the slightest idea how to get from where we are now to a global average of 54 kWh per household w/o baking the planet.
It’s an enormously complex non-linear systems problem. My best estimate of the amount of capital required, and the necessary timing, would require the developed countries to accept major declines in standard of living.
@Nigel’s 7:24… The US runs just under 90 kWh per household per day for residential, commercial, industrial and transportation usage. Japan, probably the most efficient of the developed countries, with some geographic advantages, runs about 60% of that — call it 54 kWh per household per day across the full set of demand. I’m willing to argue that no one has the slightest idea how to get from where we are now to a global average of 54 kWh per household w/o baking the planet.
It’s an enormously complex non-linear systems problem. My best estimate of the amount of capital required, and the necessary timing, would require the developed countries to accept major declines in standard of living.
@Nigel’s 7:24… The US runs just under 90 kWh per household per day for residential, commercial, industrial and transportation usage. Japan, probably the most efficient of the developed countries, with some geographic advantages, runs about 60% of that — call it 54 kWh per household per day across the full set of demand. I’m willing to argue that no one has the slightest idea how to get from where we are now to a global average of 54 kWh per household w/o baking the planet.
It’s an enormously complex non-linear systems problem. My best estimate of the amount of capital required, and the necessary timing, would require the developed countries to accept major declines in standard of living.
Declines in standards of living make people more vulnerable to climate, changing or not.
The most effective way to protect people from the vicissitudes of climate is to end energy poverty. For several billion people around the world, the only way to do that in the near term is to use more fossil fuels. Are we going to tell them, “We got ours, too bad for you.”?
Declines in standards of living make people more vulnerable to climate, changing or not.
The most effective way to protect people from the vicissitudes of climate is to end energy poverty. For several billion people around the world, the only way to do that in the near term is to use more fossil fuels. Are we going to tell them, “We got ours, too bad for you.”?
Declines in standards of living make people more vulnerable to climate, changing or not.
The most effective way to protect people from the vicissitudes of climate is to end energy poverty. For several billion people around the world, the only way to do that in the near term is to use more fossil fuels. Are we going to tell them, “We got ours, too bad for you.”?
“There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.”
This is absolutely true. President Trump is absolutely going to be scary on a whole lot of levels that don’t come anywhere near what a normal Republican operating in the normal political sphere would.
There is a level of tribalism and polarization in this country that I just don’t remember from earlier in my life. Even in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam you could still see Democrats and Republicans who were friends and traveled in each other’s circles.
We need to attack the lack of contact with each other.
“There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.”
This is absolutely true. President Trump is absolutely going to be scary on a whole lot of levels that don’t come anywhere near what a normal Republican operating in the normal political sphere would.
There is a level of tribalism and polarization in this country that I just don’t remember from earlier in my life. Even in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam you could still see Democrats and Republicans who were friends and traveled in each other’s circles.
We need to attack the lack of contact with each other.
“There’s always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn’t plainly scandalous.”
This is absolutely true. President Trump is absolutely going to be scary on a whole lot of levels that don’t come anywhere near what a normal Republican operating in the normal political sphere would.
There is a level of tribalism and polarization in this country that I just don’t remember from earlier in my life. Even in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam you could still see Democrats and Republicans who were friends and traveled in each other’s circles.
We need to attack the lack of contact with each other.
Want more contact to reduce toxic partisanship? Just have Congress go back to working 5 day weeks. Instead of the current 3. Thereby strongly encouraging congressman to move (with their families!) to Washington.
This, in turn, increases the amount of social (as opposed to strictly political) interaction that they have with each other. As someone once remarked, “It’s hard to demonize a guy after spending Saturday afternoon standing next to him cheering on your kids’ soccer team.”
If the politicians dial back the rhetoric, there’s a chance for the rest of the population to move in the same direction. Otherwise, not so much.
Want more contact to reduce toxic partisanship? Just have Congress go back to working 5 day weeks. Instead of the current 3. Thereby strongly encouraging congressman to move (with their families!) to Washington.
This, in turn, increases the amount of social (as opposed to strictly political) interaction that they have with each other. As someone once remarked, “It’s hard to demonize a guy after spending Saturday afternoon standing next to him cheering on your kids’ soccer team.”
If the politicians dial back the rhetoric, there’s a chance for the rest of the population to move in the same direction. Otherwise, not so much.
Want more contact to reduce toxic partisanship? Just have Congress go back to working 5 day weeks. Instead of the current 3. Thereby strongly encouraging congressman to move (with their families!) to Washington.
This, in turn, increases the amount of social (as opposed to strictly political) interaction that they have with each other. As someone once remarked, “It’s hard to demonize a guy after spending Saturday afternoon standing next to him cheering on your kids’ soccer team.”
If the politicians dial back the rhetoric, there’s a chance for the rest of the population to move in the same direction. Otherwise, not so much.
what is a major decline in standard of living?
where do the 90kwh per day per household go?
my assumption is that there are paths forward other than ‘back to the stone age’ and ‘oh well we’re screwed’
what is a major decline in standard of living?
where do the 90kwh per day per household go?
my assumption is that there are paths forward other than ‘back to the stone age’ and ‘oh well we’re screwed’
what is a major decline in standard of living?
where do the 90kwh per day per household go?
my assumption is that there are paths forward other than ‘back to the stone age’ and ‘oh well we’re screwed’
Is anyone really claiming that ?
Not to be kicking sand in anyone’s face,I feel like Marty and McT evince that notion, at least from my reading, which may be totally off. This from McT’s previous long post
Once you get into a defined group, individual characteristics–not skin color, not objects of sexual desire–drive leadership and accomplishment. Second, it pays to be kind to the English language when having these discussions. A 22% variance in idea acceptance (whatever the hell that is) is not being “always kept out.” It is a 22% difference in idea acceptance. In what specific way is that due to ethnicity or orientation? Numbers only tell part of the story. How old/how many years in service and what were the different real world experience levels of the group members and what were the percentages of ideas accepted from the different experience cohorts? Did anyone check their work against those groups? Because if they didn’t, that’s just bad methodology. Or, in common vernacular, junk science. I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better. (emphasis mine)
I’m thinking that McT is same age as me, late 50’s? At what point in our days of youth did African Americans or women have the same kind of chances that we did? I’m sure McT has great legal acumen and great ideas, and there’s nothing shabby about his argumentation skills, but to think that the thousands of people defined by either “skin color or objects of sexual desire” who did not have a chance to “do it way more” would not have some of them reach a point where they could win some of those arguments seems to be ignoring the water we are all swimming in.
Is anyone really claiming that ?
Not to be kicking sand in anyone’s face,I feel like Marty and McT evince that notion, at least from my reading, which may be totally off. This from McT’s previous long post
Once you get into a defined group, individual characteristics–not skin color, not objects of sexual desire–drive leadership and accomplishment. Second, it pays to be kind to the English language when having these discussions. A 22% variance in idea acceptance (whatever the hell that is) is not being “always kept out.” It is a 22% difference in idea acceptance. In what specific way is that due to ethnicity or orientation? Numbers only tell part of the story. How old/how many years in service and what were the different real world experience levels of the group members and what were the percentages of ideas accepted from the different experience cohorts? Did anyone check their work against those groups? Because if they didn’t, that’s just bad methodology. Or, in common vernacular, junk science. I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better. (emphasis mine)
I’m thinking that McT is same age as me, late 50’s? At what point in our days of youth did African Americans or women have the same kind of chances that we did? I’m sure McT has great legal acumen and great ideas, and there’s nothing shabby about his argumentation skills, but to think that the thousands of people defined by either “skin color or objects of sexual desire” who did not have a chance to “do it way more” would not have some of them reach a point where they could win some of those arguments seems to be ignoring the water we are all swimming in.
Is anyone really claiming that ?
Not to be kicking sand in anyone’s face,I feel like Marty and McT evince that notion, at least from my reading, which may be totally off. This from McT’s previous long post
Once you get into a defined group, individual characteristics–not skin color, not objects of sexual desire–drive leadership and accomplishment. Second, it pays to be kind to the English language when having these discussions. A 22% variance in idea acceptance (whatever the hell that is) is not being “always kept out.” It is a 22% difference in idea acceptance. In what specific way is that due to ethnicity or orientation? Numbers only tell part of the story. How old/how many years in service and what were the different real world experience levels of the group members and what were the percentages of ideas accepted from the different experience cohorts? Did anyone check their work against those groups? Because if they didn’t, that’s just bad methodology. Or, in common vernacular, junk science. I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better. (emphasis mine)
I’m thinking that McT is same age as me, late 50’s? At what point in our days of youth did African Americans or women have the same kind of chances that we did? I’m sure McT has great legal acumen and great ideas, and there’s nothing shabby about his argumentation skills, but to think that the thousands of people defined by either “skin color or objects of sexual desire” who did not have a chance to “do it way more” would not have some of them reach a point where they could win some of those arguments seems to be ignoring the water we are all swimming in.
lj, I very much appreciate your comments in this thead, and think the video is a helpful way to explain the concept of implicit bias to people who don’t get it.
As to this statement, by McKinney:
I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better.
McKinney lives in the legal world, which is a very conservative (small c) one. Perception (either of the argument or the advocate) is key to winning an argument. McKinney comes to an argument armed with certain things: legal knowledge, skills in oratory, demeanor, and physical attributes. White men have a built-in dominant authority because of our culture. I’ve posted links before, but here are some more:
Why female professors get lower ratings
Pretty girls make higher grades
Do teachers discriminate against boys?
Bias persists against women in science
These all are articles about gender, and bias in education, but the point is similar: in studies where people (male and female) are evaluating other people, there is bias having nothing to do with ability.
It’s possible that, as flawed humans, we can’t entirely eradicate bias, but we can certainly acknowledge it, and try to factor it into our own thinking. (Interesting and telling, that McKinney holds himself out as an epitome of accomplishment. He acknowledges it: “Immodest, yes” he says. Out of 7.4 billion people, he chose himself. Ha ha.)
lj, I very much appreciate your comments in this thead, and think the video is a helpful way to explain the concept of implicit bias to people who don’t get it.
As to this statement, by McKinney:
I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better.
McKinney lives in the legal world, which is a very conservative (small c) one. Perception (either of the argument or the advocate) is key to winning an argument. McKinney comes to an argument armed with certain things: legal knowledge, skills in oratory, demeanor, and physical attributes. White men have a built-in dominant authority because of our culture. I’ve posted links before, but here are some more:
Why female professors get lower ratings
Pretty girls make higher grades
Do teachers discriminate against boys?
Bias persists against women in science
These all are articles about gender, and bias in education, but the point is similar: in studies where people (male and female) are evaluating other people, there is bias having nothing to do with ability.
It’s possible that, as flawed humans, we can’t entirely eradicate bias, but we can certainly acknowledge it, and try to factor it into our own thinking. (Interesting and telling, that McKinney holds himself out as an epitome of accomplishment. He acknowledges it: “Immodest, yes” he says. Out of 7.4 billion people, he chose himself. Ha ha.)
lj, I very much appreciate your comments in this thead, and think the video is a helpful way to explain the concept of implicit bias to people who don’t get it.
As to this statement, by McKinney:
I can assure you, in a racially and gender diverse law office, my ideas carry the day 9 out of 10 times because I’ve done this way more than anyone else and I’ve, for the most part, done it better.
McKinney lives in the legal world, which is a very conservative (small c) one. Perception (either of the argument or the advocate) is key to winning an argument. McKinney comes to an argument armed with certain things: legal knowledge, skills in oratory, demeanor, and physical attributes. White men have a built-in dominant authority because of our culture. I’ve posted links before, but here are some more:
Why female professors get lower ratings
Pretty girls make higher grades
Do teachers discriminate against boys?
Bias persists against women in science
These all are articles about gender, and bias in education, but the point is similar: in studies where people (male and female) are evaluating other people, there is bias having nothing to do with ability.
It’s possible that, as flawed humans, we can’t entirely eradicate bias, but we can certainly acknowledge it, and try to factor it into our own thinking. (Interesting and telling, that McKinney holds himself out as an epitome of accomplishment. He acknowledges it: “Immodest, yes” he says. Out of 7.4 billion people, he chose himself. Ha ha.)
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
So that means we should double our hiring of tall men because they’re better employees? Or, instead, should we ask ourselves whether that short guy is actually doing a really good job?
What’s your point?
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
So that means we should double our hiring of tall men because they’re better employees? Or, instead, should we ask ourselves whether that short guy is actually doing a really good job?
What’s your point?
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
So that means we should double our hiring of tall men because they’re better employees? Or, instead, should we ask ourselves whether that short guy is actually doing a really good job?
What’s your point?
“And tall men get promoted more than short men.”
yes, that’s so.
and were people to say that its all BS, that it has nothin to do with their height, and that short men just need to get their sh*t together, short men would be pissed.
and if short men were disproportionately subject to assault or harassment, or if an unusual number of unarmed short men were shot by cops, they’d really be pissed.
“And tall men get promoted more than short men.”
yes, that’s so.
and were people to say that its all BS, that it has nothin to do with their height, and that short men just need to get their sh*t together, short men would be pissed.
and if short men were disproportionately subject to assault or harassment, or if an unusual number of unarmed short men were shot by cops, they’d really be pissed.
“And tall men get promoted more than short men.”
yes, that’s so.
and were people to say that its all BS, that it has nothin to do with their height, and that short men just need to get their sh*t together, short men would be pissed.
and if short men were disproportionately subject to assault or harassment, or if an unusual number of unarmed short men were shot by cops, they’d really be pissed.
“What’s your point?”
Just making sure the list was more complete.
We live in a world where both short term judgements and longer term assessments are often impacted by external features.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
When faced with a candidate that did not do well in an interview it is almost certainly easier to assume they are not the brightest bulb if they are black. Although in a rational analysis I would reject that as an acceptable criteria, prejudice exists.
Alternatively, my prejudices are that women make better project managers, that white males tend to be easier to manage than almost everyone else, that creative designers are a pain in the ass by nature and engineers are absolutely the most boring people in the world. The last defining my view of myself. I think bass players are incredibly unreliable when getting to practice is concerned. I think academics are haughty because they tend to be defensive about what they do, as are Canadians defensive due to an underlying feeling that people see them as somehow inferior to Americans. Indians tend to be very subordinate to authority and Russians not so much. I tend to not notice that people that work for me are gay until they show up at the Christmas party with their partner. Some people think that’s bad, others not so much.
I think the water is pretty deep and more individualistic than some perceive. But its foolish to think that I am not aware of the water.
“What’s your point?”
Just making sure the list was more complete.
We live in a world where both short term judgements and longer term assessments are often impacted by external features.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
When faced with a candidate that did not do well in an interview it is almost certainly easier to assume they are not the brightest bulb if they are black. Although in a rational analysis I would reject that as an acceptable criteria, prejudice exists.
Alternatively, my prejudices are that women make better project managers, that white males tend to be easier to manage than almost everyone else, that creative designers are a pain in the ass by nature and engineers are absolutely the most boring people in the world. The last defining my view of myself. I think bass players are incredibly unreliable when getting to practice is concerned. I think academics are haughty because they tend to be defensive about what they do, as are Canadians defensive due to an underlying feeling that people see them as somehow inferior to Americans. Indians tend to be very subordinate to authority and Russians not so much. I tend to not notice that people that work for me are gay until they show up at the Christmas party with their partner. Some people think that’s bad, others not so much.
I think the water is pretty deep and more individualistic than some perceive. But its foolish to think that I am not aware of the water.
“What’s your point?”
Just making sure the list was more complete.
We live in a world where both short term judgements and longer term assessments are often impacted by external features.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
When faced with a candidate that did not do well in an interview it is almost certainly easier to assume they are not the brightest bulb if they are black. Although in a rational analysis I would reject that as an acceptable criteria, prejudice exists.
Alternatively, my prejudices are that women make better project managers, that white males tend to be easier to manage than almost everyone else, that creative designers are a pain in the ass by nature and engineers are absolutely the most boring people in the world. The last defining my view of myself. I think bass players are incredibly unreliable when getting to practice is concerned. I think academics are haughty because they tend to be defensive about what they do, as are Canadians defensive due to an underlying feeling that people see them as somehow inferior to Americans. Indians tend to be very subordinate to authority and Russians not so much. I tend to not notice that people that work for me are gay until they show up at the Christmas party with their partner. Some people think that’s bad, others not so much.
I think the water is pretty deep and more individualistic than some perceive. But its foolish to think that I am not aware of the water.
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers, at least compared to other systems for allocating goods and services. But somehow we’ve seemed to have lost that understanding in the US (if we ever had it).
ISTM that for the past 30+ years business has been used as a substitute for consumers (itself an imperfect stand in for the citizenry) – such that if some kind of policy is “good” for business it’s good for consumers (or perhaps “jobs”). “Business” writ large has since been replaced, sub silentio, with large multinational corporations (with “small businesses” given prominence in when it’s advantageous to large businesses to mention their interest), thus what is good for MNC’s is assumed good for consumers/jobs by policymakers.
Instead it is often, if not mostly, the opposite. And it’s going to just explode under Trump in a way we haven’t seen since, who knows when, the 1920s?
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers, at least compared to other systems for allocating goods and services. But somehow we’ve seemed to have lost that understanding in the US (if we ever had it).
ISTM that for the past 30+ years business has been used as a substitute for consumers (itself an imperfect stand in for the citizenry) – such that if some kind of policy is “good” for business it’s good for consumers (or perhaps “jobs”). “Business” writ large has since been replaced, sub silentio, with large multinational corporations (with “small businesses” given prominence in when it’s advantageous to large businesses to mention their interest), thus what is good for MNC’s is assumed good for consumers/jobs by policymakers.
Instead it is often, if not mostly, the opposite. And it’s going to just explode under Trump in a way we haven’t seen since, who knows when, the 1920s?
But capitalism, per se, isn’t really about rewarding lazy people and rentiers.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers, at least compared to other systems for allocating goods and services. But somehow we’ve seemed to have lost that understanding in the US (if we ever had it).
ISTM that for the past 30+ years business has been used as a substitute for consumers (itself an imperfect stand in for the citizenry) – such that if some kind of policy is “good” for business it’s good for consumers (or perhaps “jobs”). “Business” writ large has since been replaced, sub silentio, with large multinational corporations (with “small businesses” given prominence in when it’s advantageous to large businesses to mention their interest), thus what is good for MNC’s is assumed good for consumers/jobs by policymakers.
Instead it is often, if not mostly, the opposite. And it’s going to just explode under Trump in a way we haven’t seen since, who knows when, the 1920s?
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
I think Marty should change his handle to Whiplash. We argue until we’re blue in the face, and then he pops up to say (not in so many words), “Oh, yeah, I do that. I have implicit biases that affect my thinking. I mean, who doesn’t, right?”
So here I am with a big question mark inside a bubble floating above my head.
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
I think Marty should change his handle to Whiplash. We argue until we’re blue in the face, and then he pops up to say (not in so many words), “Oh, yeah, I do that. I have implicit biases that affect my thinking. I mean, who doesn’t, right?”
So here I am with a big question mark inside a bubble floating above my head.
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
I think Marty should change his handle to Whiplash. We argue until we’re blue in the face, and then he pops up to say (not in so many words), “Oh, yeah, I do that. I have implicit biases that affect my thinking. I mean, who doesn’t, right?”
So here I am with a big question mark inside a bubble floating above my head.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon
But maybe it informs incarceration rates? poverty rates? employment rates? No point interacting with the willfully blind.
How’s that errant middle finger doing?
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon
But maybe it informs incarceration rates? poverty rates? employment rates? No point interacting with the willfully blind.
How’s that errant middle finger doing?
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon
But maybe it informs incarceration rates? poverty rates? employment rates? No point interacting with the willfully blind.
How’s that errant middle finger doing?
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
People here have made the point that part of the problem is hyper-defensiveness against one’s own racism. That you are willing to admit to yours seems somewhat at odds with the idea that it shouldn’t be called that.
The way I see it, as others have already said, is that we are (at least almost) all racist to some degree or another. It would be the rare bird who wasn’t. So long as you don’t deny or ignore it, you don’t passively or indifferently accept it, and – most of all – you don’t embrace and nurture it, it doesn’t, in and of itself, make you a bad person. It’s a flaw, and we all have them.
We just need to try to be better.
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
People here have made the point that part of the problem is hyper-defensiveness against one’s own racism. That you are willing to admit to yours seems somewhat at odds with the idea that it shouldn’t be called that.
The way I see it, as others have already said, is that we are (at least almost) all racist to some degree or another. It would be the rare bird who wasn’t. So long as you don’t deny or ignore it, you don’t passively or indifferently accept it, and – most of all – you don’t embrace and nurture it, it doesn’t, in and of itself, make you a bad person. It’s a flaw, and we all have them.
We just need to try to be better.
I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
People here have made the point that part of the problem is hyper-defensiveness against one’s own racism. That you are willing to admit to yours seems somewhat at odds with the idea that it shouldn’t be called that.
The way I see it, as others have already said, is that we are (at least almost) all racist to some degree or another. It would be the rare bird who wasn’t. So long as you don’t deny or ignore it, you don’t passively or indifferently accept it, and – most of all – you don’t embrace and nurture it, it doesn’t, in and of itself, make you a bad person. It’s a flaw, and we all have them.
We just need to try to be better.
I am not sure what the confusion is
Confusion is probably the wrong word.
Not all common prejudices have the same degree of effect. E.g., short men vs black people.
If calling bias based on race ‘racism’ is a bridge too far, I’m fine with just calling it a bias based on race.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers
That’s certainly the party line.
Both in theory and practice, I’m not sure it’s actually true.
As currently construed, it seems to me that what capitalism is supposed to do is maximize the return on capital investment.
There is kind of a fuzzy assumption that doing the best thing for your customers is the best way to do that, but I don’t think it’s actually considered to be necessary in theory or otherwise, and in actual practice it seems optional.
I am not sure what the confusion is
Confusion is probably the wrong word.
Not all common prejudices have the same degree of effect. E.g., short men vs black people.
If calling bias based on race ‘racism’ is a bridge too far, I’m fine with just calling it a bias based on race.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers
That’s certainly the party line.
Both in theory and practice, I’m not sure it’s actually true.
As currently construed, it seems to me that what capitalism is supposed to do is maximize the return on capital investment.
There is kind of a fuzzy assumption that doing the best thing for your customers is the best way to do that, but I don’t think it’s actually considered to be necessary in theory or otherwise, and in actual practice it seems optional.
I am not sure what the confusion is
Confusion is probably the wrong word.
Not all common prejudices have the same degree of effect. E.g., short men vs black people.
If calling bias based on race ‘racism’ is a bridge too far, I’m fine with just calling it a bias based on race.
Capitalism is supposed to provide the greatest benefit to consumers
That’s certainly the party line.
Both in theory and practice, I’m not sure it’s actually true.
As currently construed, it seems to me that what capitalism is supposed to do is maximize the return on capital investment.
There is kind of a fuzzy assumption that doing the best thing for your customers is the best way to do that, but I don’t think it’s actually considered to be necessary in theory or otherwise, and in actual practice it seems optional.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition. The definition implies intent. It is not acceptable to me to be called racist. It is not implicit, it is not under the radar. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society, some level of cultural prejudice exists in every human being. As long as we talk about those prejudices from one perspective and label them incorrectly I will object.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition. The definition implies intent. It is not acceptable to me to be called racist. It is not implicit, it is not under the radar. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society, some level of cultural prejudice exists in every human being. As long as we talk about those prejudices from one perspective and label them incorrectly I will object.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition. The definition implies intent. It is not acceptable to me to be called racist. It is not implicit, it is not under the radar. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society, some level of cultural prejudice exists in every human being. As long as we talk about those prejudices from one perspective and label them incorrectly I will object.
One thing I would add is that derogatory use of terms like “social-justice warrior” or “race card” is overdone. I do understand that there are people who seem to think they are somehow pure paragons of virtue who can look down their noses at anyone they deem to be less wonderful than they are – the people I tend to think of as the archetypical “SJWs.” I also know people sometimes use unsubstantiated charges of racism for their own advantage – what I think of as actual instances of “pulling the race card.”
I see people throwing around those terms with little regard to the actual applicability as reason for immediate dismissal of whatever argument is being made via those terms, because they are, themselves, out-of-hand dismissals.
One thing I would add is that derogatory use of terms like “social-justice warrior” or “race card” is overdone. I do understand that there are people who seem to think they are somehow pure paragons of virtue who can look down their noses at anyone they deem to be less wonderful than they are – the people I tend to think of as the archetypical “SJWs.” I also know people sometimes use unsubstantiated charges of racism for their own advantage – what I think of as actual instances of “pulling the race card.”
I see people throwing around those terms with little regard to the actual applicability as reason for immediate dismissal of whatever argument is being made via those terms, because they are, themselves, out-of-hand dismissals.
One thing I would add is that derogatory use of terms like “social-justice warrior” or “race card” is overdone. I do understand that there are people who seem to think they are somehow pure paragons of virtue who can look down their noses at anyone they deem to be less wonderful than they are – the people I tend to think of as the archetypical “SJWs.” I also know people sometimes use unsubstantiated charges of racism for their own advantage – what I think of as actual instances of “pulling the race card.”
I see people throwing around those terms with little regard to the actual applicability as reason for immediate dismissal of whatever argument is being made via those terms, because they are, themselves, out-of-hand dismissals.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society…
Not just majority (and not majority at all in the not-to-distant future), but dominated. Whites were a minority in apartheid South Africa, yet still managed to be dominant. It’s not about being a majority, it’s about being dominant. To be clear, that doesn’t make (all) white people bad.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society…
Not just majority (and not majority at all in the not-to-distant future), but dominated. Whites were a minority in apartheid South Africa, yet still managed to be dominant. It’s not about being a majority, it’s about being dominant. To be clear, that doesn’t make (all) white people bad.
I couldn’t care less if we live in a white majority society…
Not just majority (and not majority at all in the not-to-distant future), but dominated. Whites were a minority in apartheid South Africa, yet still managed to be dominant. It’s not about being a majority, it’s about being dominant. To be clear, that doesn’t make (all) white people bad.
The definition implies intent.
But not all definitions of racism say ‘directed’. What is problematic about this definition?
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
contrast with the definition of sexism
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Intent seems like an add on to help people convince themselves that they can’t be racist because they aren’t directing it at anyone. Why do you think it is essential to the definition?
The definition implies intent.
But not all definitions of racism say ‘directed’. What is problematic about this definition?
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
contrast with the definition of sexism
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Intent seems like an add on to help people convince themselves that they can’t be racist because they aren’t directing it at anyone. Why do you think it is essential to the definition?
The definition implies intent.
But not all definitions of racism say ‘directed’. What is problematic about this definition?
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
contrast with the definition of sexism
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
Intent seems like an add on to help people convince themselves that they can’t be racist because they aren’t directing it at anyone. Why do you think it is essential to the definition?
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition.
Like most words, it has more than one definition. Some use “especially” to qualify the part about believing that one’s own race is superior. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And it doesn’t even make sense, given what you wrote earlier.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
I’m not pointing this out to make you a villain or to throw it in your face to demonstrate my moral superiority. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that “blacks just aren’t as smart” isn’t a belief in one’s own racial superiority, even if it’s not something you believe intellectually. It’s something you’ve internalized culturally that you have to recognize and manage on an intellectual level.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition.
Like most words, it has more than one definition. Some use “especially” to qualify the part about believing that one’s own race is superior. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And it doesn’t even make sense, given what you wrote earlier.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
I’m not pointing this out to make you a villain or to throw it in your face to demonstrate my moral superiority. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that “blacks just aren’t as smart” isn’t a belief in one’s own racial superiority, even if it’s not something you believe intellectually. It’s something you’ve internalized culturally that you have to recognize and manage on an intellectual level.
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
It has a definition.
Like most words, it has more than one definition. Some use “especially” to qualify the part about believing that one’s own race is superior. It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And it doesn’t even make sense, given what you wrote earlier.
Some of those assumptions have some basis in facts(white men can’t jump) others are historical remnants of prejudices(girls aren’t good at math) and some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart).
I have hired at least a few thousand people in my life and all of things have at some point crept into my decision making process.
Even the last.
I’m not pointing this out to make you a villain or to throw it in your face to demonstrate my moral superiority. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that “blacks just aren’t as smart” isn’t a belief in one’s own racial superiority, even if it’s not something you believe intellectually. It’s something you’ve internalized culturally that you have to recognize and manage on an intellectual level.
First, I’m not really interested in calling you a racist. I’m not especially interested in calling anybody a racist. Maybe Spencer, but he’d be the first one to embrace it.
I think it’s helpful to recognize that racism – treating people differently because of their skin color – is common to the point of being almost ubiquitous.
To varying degrees of consequence.
That said, as far as I can tell, this:
some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart)
is this:
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
Right?
I’m not pointing a finger, I’m looking for some self-awareness. Which you have demonstrated here, and thank you.
As far as the reparations thing, TNC was not calling for reparations because white people are mean to black people. His argument for reparations was based on a thoroughly documented demonstration of deliberate policies in government, financial industry, and society in general that led to the impoverishment of black people of about two generations ago.
Whether you think reparations are appropriate or not, it was a very specific, well-supported, and very closely argued position.
First, I’m not really interested in calling you a racist. I’m not especially interested in calling anybody a racist. Maybe Spencer, but he’d be the first one to embrace it.
I think it’s helpful to recognize that racism – treating people differently because of their skin color – is common to the point of being almost ubiquitous.
To varying degrees of consequence.
That said, as far as I can tell, this:
some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart)
is this:
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
Right?
I’m not pointing a finger, I’m looking for some self-awareness. Which you have demonstrated here, and thank you.
As far as the reparations thing, TNC was not calling for reparations because white people are mean to black people. His argument for reparations was based on a thoroughly documented demonstration of deliberate policies in government, financial industry, and society in general that led to the impoverishment of black people of about two generations ago.
Whether you think reparations are appropriate or not, it was a very specific, well-supported, and very closely argued position.
First, I’m not really interested in calling you a racist. I’m not especially interested in calling anybody a racist. Maybe Spencer, but he’d be the first one to embrace it.
I think it’s helpful to recognize that racism – treating people differently because of their skin color – is common to the point of being almost ubiquitous.
To varying degrees of consequence.
That said, as far as I can tell, this:
some are driven by more heinous historical assumptions(blacks just aren’t are smart)
is this:
Racism- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
Right?
I’m not pointing a finger, I’m looking for some self-awareness. Which you have demonstrated here, and thank you.
As far as the reparations thing, TNC was not calling for reparations because white people are mean to black people. His argument for reparations was based on a thoroughly documented demonstration of deliberate policies in government, financial industry, and society in general that led to the impoverishment of black people of about two generations ago.
Whether you think reparations are appropriate or not, it was a very specific, well-supported, and very closely argued position.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
I’m torn. I’m willing to accept a distinction between individual racism and institutional racism, which puts me at odds with orthodox identity politics’ opinion on the subject. I am 100% A-okay with that, as I think identity politics are a corrosive if not outright toxic mode of organizing one’s thoughts, and the dominant adherents of the movement are power-hungry more than than they are justice-seeking. I’m a bit hostile to the assertion that individual racism isn’t racism. Because it is, unless we’re changing definitions to benefit ideological theorizing. And beyond that, said ideological theorizing has a very bad habit of splitting individual racism into two distinct categories: individual not-racist “bias” or “bigotry” that is perpetuated by members of demographics victimized by systematic racism, and “racism” that is perpetuated by members of majority demographics whose personal actions comprise a critical part of the overarching racist system. And this slight-of-hand is incredibly common.
“Racism” has in our cultural discourse been elevated to a special status which is significantly more damning than “bias” or “bigotry”. By making racism something that can only be the problem of certain demographics, it seeks to invert a power hierarchy rather than eliminating it, and that rankles me. A lot. Racism is a “special sin” in our political discourse (for a pop-culture example, look at House of Cards: the lead was a toxic, evil individual, but we were expected to still empathize with him, and to some degree this was signaled by his refusal to cross the “bright lines” of racism and homophobia (misogyny is okay, obviously)). Being able to cast your opponents actions as racist while being immune to the charge yourself is an enormous rhetorical advantage, and allows you to act rather badly while dismissing criticism of your possibly-appalling behavior as “less important” and “not worth discussing” since you’re crusading against the greater evil of racism, and/or the end justifies the means (which obviously wouldn’t work if the end was to eliminate the means).
There is a decidedly Leninist bent (in methodology, not ideology) within large swathes of activist adherents of identity politics. It’s toxic, and dangerous. I’m not really willing to accept downgrading individual racism to a status of lesser evil at IP’s behest. Individuals (of all races) can be racist, and this is determined by their actions, not by whether those actions align with or support racist social structures and systems that exist at a certain, arbitrarily-defined higher level. Systematic racism and individual racism differ in degree and scale, not in kind.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
I’m torn. I’m willing to accept a distinction between individual racism and institutional racism, which puts me at odds with orthodox identity politics’ opinion on the subject. I am 100% A-okay with that, as I think identity politics are a corrosive if not outright toxic mode of organizing one’s thoughts, and the dominant adherents of the movement are power-hungry more than than they are justice-seeking. I’m a bit hostile to the assertion that individual racism isn’t racism. Because it is, unless we’re changing definitions to benefit ideological theorizing. And beyond that, said ideological theorizing has a very bad habit of splitting individual racism into two distinct categories: individual not-racist “bias” or “bigotry” that is perpetuated by members of demographics victimized by systematic racism, and “racism” that is perpetuated by members of majority demographics whose personal actions comprise a critical part of the overarching racist system. And this slight-of-hand is incredibly common.
“Racism” has in our cultural discourse been elevated to a special status which is significantly more damning than “bias” or “bigotry”. By making racism something that can only be the problem of certain demographics, it seeks to invert a power hierarchy rather than eliminating it, and that rankles me. A lot. Racism is a “special sin” in our political discourse (for a pop-culture example, look at House of Cards: the lead was a toxic, evil individual, but we were expected to still empathize with him, and to some degree this was signaled by his refusal to cross the “bright lines” of racism and homophobia (misogyny is okay, obviously)). Being able to cast your opponents actions as racist while being immune to the charge yourself is an enormous rhetorical advantage, and allows you to act rather badly while dismissing criticism of your possibly-appalling behavior as “less important” and “not worth discussing” since you’re crusading against the greater evil of racism, and/or the end justifies the means (which obviously wouldn’t work if the end was to eliminate the means).
There is a decidedly Leninist bent (in methodology, not ideology) within large swathes of activist adherents of identity politics. It’s toxic, and dangerous. I’m not really willing to accept downgrading individual racism to a status of lesser evil at IP’s behest. Individuals (of all races) can be racist, and this is determined by their actions, not by whether those actions align with or support racist social structures and systems that exist at a certain, arbitrarily-defined higher level. Systematic racism and individual racism differ in degree and scale, not in kind.
I don’t really disagree, except that, while I do agree that charges of racism can be taken too far or made too blithely, I don’t agree that the word shouldn’t be applied to individual prejudices shaped by one’s culture. (I don’t recall anyone saying it’s an exclusively white phenomenon, though we do live in a white-dominated society.)
I’m torn. I’m willing to accept a distinction between individual racism and institutional racism, which puts me at odds with orthodox identity politics’ opinion on the subject. I am 100% A-okay with that, as I think identity politics are a corrosive if not outright toxic mode of organizing one’s thoughts, and the dominant adherents of the movement are power-hungry more than than they are justice-seeking. I’m a bit hostile to the assertion that individual racism isn’t racism. Because it is, unless we’re changing definitions to benefit ideological theorizing. And beyond that, said ideological theorizing has a very bad habit of splitting individual racism into two distinct categories: individual not-racist “bias” or “bigotry” that is perpetuated by members of demographics victimized by systematic racism, and “racism” that is perpetuated by members of majority demographics whose personal actions comprise a critical part of the overarching racist system. And this slight-of-hand is incredibly common.
“Racism” has in our cultural discourse been elevated to a special status which is significantly more damning than “bias” or “bigotry”. By making racism something that can only be the problem of certain demographics, it seeks to invert a power hierarchy rather than eliminating it, and that rankles me. A lot. Racism is a “special sin” in our political discourse (for a pop-culture example, look at House of Cards: the lead was a toxic, evil individual, but we were expected to still empathize with him, and to some degree this was signaled by his refusal to cross the “bright lines” of racism and homophobia (misogyny is okay, obviously)). Being able to cast your opponents actions as racist while being immune to the charge yourself is an enormous rhetorical advantage, and allows you to act rather badly while dismissing criticism of your possibly-appalling behavior as “less important” and “not worth discussing” since you’re crusading against the greater evil of racism, and/or the end justifies the means (which obviously wouldn’t work if the end was to eliminate the means).
There is a decidedly Leninist bent (in methodology, not ideology) within large swathes of activist adherents of identity politics. It’s toxic, and dangerous. I’m not really willing to accept downgrading individual racism to a status of lesser evil at IP’s behest. Individuals (of all races) can be racist, and this is determined by their actions, not by whether those actions align with or support racist social structures and systems that exist at a certain, arbitrarily-defined higher level. Systematic racism and individual racism differ in degree and scale, not in kind.
So I copied that right out of the Oxford English Dictionary. It is the definition of racist that I grew up with, marched in Civil rights demonstrations against, had literal fist fights with the KKK guys I knew in the army over. I can assure you I am never going to accept that label. So I will say nothing or object every time I see it being used cavalierly.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
The fact that I recognize that at some point over the years that that probably impacted me in the hiring process is a level of self awareness I would strive for.
But racism is me not giving the job to someone because they are black. Not ever what happened.
So I copied that right out of the Oxford English Dictionary. It is the definition of racist that I grew up with, marched in Civil rights demonstrations against, had literal fist fights with the KKK guys I knew in the army over. I can assure you I am never going to accept that label. So I will say nothing or object every time I see it being used cavalierly.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
The fact that I recognize that at some point over the years that that probably impacted me in the hiring process is a level of self awareness I would strive for.
But racism is me not giving the job to someone because they are black. Not ever what happened.
So I copied that right out of the Oxford English Dictionary. It is the definition of racist that I grew up with, marched in Civil rights demonstrations against, had literal fist fights with the KKK guys I knew in the army over. I can assure you I am never going to accept that label. So I will say nothing or object every time I see it being used cavalierly.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
The fact that I recognize that at some point over the years that that probably impacted me in the hiring process is a level of self awareness I would strive for.
But racism is me not giving the job to someone because they are black. Not ever what happened.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
Being called “a racist” is different, IMO. It’s sort of like being call “a liar.” Everyone lies sometimes. “A liar” is someone who lies a lot more or tells bigger lies than the average person. Once you accept that we are (at least almost) all racist (an adjective, as opposed to “racists” – a plural noun), the conversation should be less fraught. That may seem like a silly distinction, but language works that way sometimes … because humans.
If I call someone “a racist” the gloves are off. You have to push me pretty far before I drop the gloves.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
Being called “a racist” is different, IMO. It’s sort of like being call “a liar.” Everyone lies sometimes. “A liar” is someone who lies a lot more or tells bigger lies than the average person. Once you accept that we are (at least almost) all racist (an adjective, as opposed to “racists” – a plural noun), the conversation should be less fraught. That may seem like a silly distinction, but language works that way sometimes … because humans.
If I call someone “a racist” the gloves are off. You have to push me pretty far before I drop the gloves.
There is no such thing as being hyper sensitive to being called a racist.
Being called “a racist” is different, IMO. It’s sort of like being call “a liar.” Everyone lies sometimes. “A liar” is someone who lies a lot more or tells bigger lies than the average person. Once you accept that we are (at least almost) all racist (an adjective, as opposed to “racists” – a plural noun), the conversation should be less fraught. That may seem like a silly distinction, but language works that way sometimes … because humans.
If I call someone “a racist” the gloves are off. You have to push me pretty far before I drop the gloves.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’ll take these one at a time:
Climate Change: has been going on for millennia. It would be weird if humans did not contribute to it; however, the extent to which this ongoing process can be materially changed by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, the message of dire, imminent danger coupled with shouting down any and all dissent seems a bit contrived for those of us outside the bubble. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Weather patterns have shifted for thousands of years. Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
“Very strict controls on voting.”
This is why the climate change histrionics often fall on deaf ears–y’all grossly overstate the case in almost every instance. Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
Deporting millions of people.
Well, someone left out the word “illegal”, which in fact they are. So, for the “Rule of Law Community”, I will note that the fealty to that notion is notional. Are you saying that anyone who comes to the US illegally has the right to stay here? If not, what are you saying, specifically?
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
Deficit/massive tax cuts/massive cuts to SS and Medicare.
Sure, that’s what Republicans stand for. The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!! The cuts were across the board. Saying otherwise is silly and untrue. Moreover, outside the bubble, anyone with a brain knows it’s untrue.
Ditto “massive cuts” in SS and Medicare. Republicans would cut welfare spending, or consolidate it, perhaps, but the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Deficits are a problem. What’s the Progressive solution?
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Changing subjects: my views on race and prejudice.
1. It is a universal phenomenon. The US has led the world in recognizing and addressing the issue. Much progress has been made, more will be made.
2. Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life. It is one of many variables that affect people and relationships on a macro basis. On a micro basis, e.g. small group dynamics, personality, competence, etc are more important than race or sex, especially once a given small group gets to know one another.
3. Age is a significant factor in the extent to which race colors a person’s views. Younger people, with exceptions of course, are much less race/orientation oriented than older people.
4. Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
5. Idiosyncratic, residual race-based preferences/decision making at the personal level (parents who want their child to marry within their racial category) will continue for who knows how long. As we continue to progress, ethnicity will be less and less of a factor in economic decision making, e.g. hiring etc.
I’m 62, 4 months shy of 63. The changes I’ve seen in my life are extraordinary. I recognize that we are all aware of race and that, in varying degrees race informs what we think and do. I reject that the election turned on race and I reject the Coates thesis that America is consciously structured support mechanism for white supremacy.
Now, back to work.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’ll take these one at a time:
Climate Change: has been going on for millennia. It would be weird if humans did not contribute to it; however, the extent to which this ongoing process can be materially changed by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, the message of dire, imminent danger coupled with shouting down any and all dissent seems a bit contrived for those of us outside the bubble. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Weather patterns have shifted for thousands of years. Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
“Very strict controls on voting.”
This is why the climate change histrionics often fall on deaf ears–y’all grossly overstate the case in almost every instance. Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
Deporting millions of people.
Well, someone left out the word “illegal”, which in fact they are. So, for the “Rule of Law Community”, I will note that the fealty to that notion is notional. Are you saying that anyone who comes to the US illegally has the right to stay here? If not, what are you saying, specifically?
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
Deficit/massive tax cuts/massive cuts to SS and Medicare.
Sure, that’s what Republicans stand for. The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!! The cuts were across the board. Saying otherwise is silly and untrue. Moreover, outside the bubble, anyone with a brain knows it’s untrue.
Ditto “massive cuts” in SS and Medicare. Republicans would cut welfare spending, or consolidate it, perhaps, but the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Deficits are a problem. What’s the Progressive solution?
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Changing subjects: my views on race and prejudice.
1. It is a universal phenomenon. The US has led the world in recognizing and addressing the issue. Much progress has been made, more will be made.
2. Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life. It is one of many variables that affect people and relationships on a macro basis. On a micro basis, e.g. small group dynamics, personality, competence, etc are more important than race or sex, especially once a given small group gets to know one another.
3. Age is a significant factor in the extent to which race colors a person’s views. Younger people, with exceptions of course, are much less race/orientation oriented than older people.
4. Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
5. Idiosyncratic, residual race-based preferences/decision making at the personal level (parents who want their child to marry within their racial category) will continue for who knows how long. As we continue to progress, ethnicity will be less and less of a factor in economic decision making, e.g. hiring etc.
I’m 62, 4 months shy of 63. The changes I’ve seen in my life are extraordinary. I recognize that we are all aware of race and that, in varying degrees race informs what we think and do. I reject that the election turned on race and I reject the Coates thesis that America is consciously structured support mechanism for white supremacy.
Now, back to work.
Consider just baseline Republican policy ideas:
Climate change is nothing to be concerned about.
We desperately need very strict controls on voting.
We should deport millions of immigrants.
We need to cut the deficit dramatically. The way to do this is to cut SS and Medicare sharply and give the wealthy massive tax cuts.
We should repeal Obamacare with nothing resembling a reasonable replacement.
I’ll take these one at a time:
Climate Change: has been going on for millennia. It would be weird if humans did not contribute to it; however, the extent to which this ongoing process can be materially changed by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, the message of dire, imminent danger coupled with shouting down any and all dissent seems a bit contrived for those of us outside the bubble. Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Weather patterns have shifted for thousands of years. Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
“Very strict controls on voting.”
This is why the climate change histrionics often fall on deaf ears–y’all grossly overstate the case in almost every instance. Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
Deporting millions of people.
Well, someone left out the word “illegal”, which in fact they are. So, for the “Rule of Law Community”, I will note that the fealty to that notion is notional. Are you saying that anyone who comes to the US illegally has the right to stay here? If not, what are you saying, specifically?
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
Deficit/massive tax cuts/massive cuts to SS and Medicare.
Sure, that’s what Republicans stand for. The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!! The cuts were across the board. Saying otherwise is silly and untrue. Moreover, outside the bubble, anyone with a brain knows it’s untrue.
Ditto “massive cuts” in SS and Medicare. Republicans would cut welfare spending, or consolidate it, perhaps, but the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Deficits are a problem. What’s the Progressive solution?
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Changing subjects: my views on race and prejudice.
1. It is a universal phenomenon. The US has led the world in recognizing and addressing the issue. Much progress has been made, more will be made.
2. Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life. It is one of many variables that affect people and relationships on a macro basis. On a micro basis, e.g. small group dynamics, personality, competence, etc are more important than race or sex, especially once a given small group gets to know one another.
3. Age is a significant factor in the extent to which race colors a person’s views. Younger people, with exceptions of course, are much less race/orientation oriented than older people.
4. Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
5. Idiosyncratic, residual race-based preferences/decision making at the personal level (parents who want their child to marry within their racial category) will continue for who knows how long. As we continue to progress, ethnicity will be less and less of a factor in economic decision making, e.g. hiring etc.
I’m 62, 4 months shy of 63. The changes I’ve seen in my life are extraordinary. I recognize that we are all aware of race and that, in varying degrees race informs what we think and do. I reject that the election turned on race and I reject the Coates thesis that America is consciously structured support mechanism for white supremacy.
Now, back to work.
My own minor contribution to the taxonomy of racism–
1. Open conscious individual racism. This comes in varying degrees and at the lowest level people who fall into this category might honestly deny their racism. And no, I don’t mean Marty.
2. Unconscious racism. We are probably all guilty of this.
3. Systemic racism, which ultimately is caused by types 1 and 2, but exists on a higher level.
Evolutionary theorists argue about how selection operates on different levels. ( Reading about that is a sporadic hobby of mine.) this is vaguely related, though I don’t think I could take the analogy very far.
People mix up the categories, which is part of why TNC rubs some people the wrong way. They think he is putting all of white America in category 1 when for the most part he is talking about category 3.
My own minor contribution to the taxonomy of racism–
1. Open conscious individual racism. This comes in varying degrees and at the lowest level people who fall into this category might honestly deny their racism. And no, I don’t mean Marty.
2. Unconscious racism. We are probably all guilty of this.
3. Systemic racism, which ultimately is caused by types 1 and 2, but exists on a higher level.
Evolutionary theorists argue about how selection operates on different levels. ( Reading about that is a sporadic hobby of mine.) this is vaguely related, though I don’t think I could take the analogy very far.
People mix up the categories, which is part of why TNC rubs some people the wrong way. They think he is putting all of white America in category 1 when for the most part he is talking about category 3.
My own minor contribution to the taxonomy of racism–
1. Open conscious individual racism. This comes in varying degrees and at the lowest level people who fall into this category might honestly deny their racism. And no, I don’t mean Marty.
2. Unconscious racism. We are probably all guilty of this.
3. Systemic racism, which ultimately is caused by types 1 and 2, but exists on a higher level.
Evolutionary theorists argue about how selection operates on different levels. ( Reading about that is a sporadic hobby of mine.) this is vaguely related, though I don’t think I could take the analogy very far.
People mix up the categories, which is part of why TNC rubs some people the wrong way. They think he is putting all of white America in category 1 when for the most part he is talking about category 3.
Anyone have a handy Venn diagram that shows the overlap between “people who get worked up about PC culture” and “people who get worked up about being called racist?”
Anyone have a handy Venn diagram that shows the overlap between “people who get worked up about PC culture” and “people who get worked up about being called racist?”
Anyone have a handy Venn diagram that shows the overlap between “people who get worked up about PC culture” and “people who get worked up about being called racist?”
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Why does it suck? And do you really believe that this is what “Progressives” would have come up with had they had carte blanche to “regulate a huge chunk of the economy”?
Like the American Healthcare system/economy was somehow free of federal/state government interference prior to the ACA.
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Why does it suck? And do you really believe that this is what “Progressives” would have come up with had they had carte blanche to “regulate a huge chunk of the economy”?
Like the American Healthcare system/economy was somehow free of federal/state government interference prior to the ACA.
Replace Obamacare?
Yep. It sucks. It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless. And, it was sold with a series of lies, so there is that as well.
Why does it suck? And do you really believe that this is what “Progressives” would have come up with had they had carte blanche to “regulate a huge chunk of the economy”?
Like the American Healthcare system/economy was somehow free of federal/state government interference prior to the ACA.
Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
They are/do? What is your solution to single parenthood, McKinney?
Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
They are/do? What is your solution to single parenthood, McKinney?
Progressives are free to ignore the impact of single parenthood on minority communities and to continue to insist that more money for schools is the solution. Unmotivated students who have never had any meaningful structure in their lives are not going to do well, for the most part, no matter how much their teachers are being paid.
They are/do? What is your solution to single parenthood, McKinney?
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It’s not just industry. There’s also a basic conflict with a particular (dominant, in some circles) strain of radical free market worship. I don’t know how important it is, but at the very least it seems to be a source of useful idiots, if you will, and another force driving “skepticism”.
To this school of thought, the very notion that there might be a market failure (such as an environmental externality) which has no reasonable solution outside government or other collective action is completely anathema.
To that end, there’s a small cottage industry of “research” striving to “debunk” even the blandest market failures, like the path externalities which led to the selection of the QWERTY keyboard layout over alternatives such as Dvorak. It must be the case that QWERTY is the best of all possible layouts, otherwise why would the market adopt and retain it?
I digress.
The point is, global warming is possibly the largest, most conclusive market failure there is, and requiring the largest, most coordinated response. Even if that response would primarily take the form of a market mechanism — simply imposing a price missing from the system — the notion that there could be anything missing from the ‘free’ market is devastating to the whole thesis. If they’re wrong about that, what else might the pure market be failing at?
So it can’t be true.
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It’s not just industry. There’s also a basic conflict with a particular (dominant, in some circles) strain of radical free market worship. I don’t know how important it is, but at the very least it seems to be a source of useful idiots, if you will, and another force driving “skepticism”.
To this school of thought, the very notion that there might be a market failure (such as an environmental externality) which has no reasonable solution outside government or other collective action is completely anathema.
To that end, there’s a small cottage industry of “research” striving to “debunk” even the blandest market failures, like the path externalities which led to the selection of the QWERTY keyboard layout over alternatives such as Dvorak. It must be the case that QWERTY is the best of all possible layouts, otherwise why would the market adopt and retain it?
I digress.
The point is, global warming is possibly the largest, most conclusive market failure there is, and requiring the largest, most coordinated response. Even if that response would primarily take the form of a market mechanism — simply imposing a price missing from the system — the notion that there could be anything missing from the ‘free’ market is devastating to the whole thesis. If they’re wrong about that, what else might the pure market be failing at?
So it can’t be true.
Second, IMO the basic issue is much, much narrower than environmental concerns vs “capitalism”. The basic issue, in this case, is environmental concerns vs. the interests of a very specific handful of industries.
It’s not just industry. There’s also a basic conflict with a particular (dominant, in some circles) strain of radical free market worship. I don’t know how important it is, but at the very least it seems to be a source of useful idiots, if you will, and another force driving “skepticism”.
To this school of thought, the very notion that there might be a market failure (such as an environmental externality) which has no reasonable solution outside government or other collective action is completely anathema.
To that end, there’s a small cottage industry of “research” striving to “debunk” even the blandest market failures, like the path externalities which led to the selection of the QWERTY keyboard layout over alternatives such as Dvorak. It must be the case that QWERTY is the best of all possible layouts, otherwise why would the market adopt and retain it?
I digress.
The point is, global warming is possibly the largest, most conclusive market failure there is, and requiring the largest, most coordinated response. Even if that response would primarily take the form of a market mechanism — simply imposing a price missing from the system — the notion that there could be anything missing from the ‘free’ market is devastating to the whole thesis. If they’re wrong about that, what else might the pure market be failing at?
So it can’t be true.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
It might be interesting to look at this in a political context. I don’t know how it plays out in, for example, legislative races. But I seem to recall that someone took a look at a century or so of Presidential elections. And without exception, the taller candidate won.
It is interesting to consider what impact that might have had on the last Presidential election. That is, how many votes went to Trump rather than Clinton simply because he was taller? Vs how many went to Trump rather than Clinton because she was female?
Clearly there were lots of other factors in play. Some of them substantially more important. But it’s food for thought.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
It might be interesting to look at this in a political context. I don’t know how it plays out in, for example, legislative races. But I seem to recall that someone took a look at a century or so of Presidential elections. And without exception, the taller candidate won.
It is interesting to consider what impact that might have had on the last Presidential election. That is, how many votes went to Trump rather than Clinton simply because he was taller? Vs how many went to Trump rather than Clinton because she was female?
Clearly there were lots of other factors in play. Some of them substantially more important. But it’s food for thought.
And tall men get promoted more than short men.
It might be interesting to look at this in a political context. I don’t know how it plays out in, for example, legislative races. But I seem to recall that someone took a look at a century or so of Presidential elections. And without exception, the taller candidate won.
It is interesting to consider what impact that might have had on the last Presidential election. That is, how many votes went to Trump rather than Clinton simply because he was taller? Vs how many went to Trump rather than Clinton because she was female?
Clearly there were lots of other factors in play. Some of them substantially more important. But it’s food for thought.
In re McKinney (at 11:23)
Climate Change:
Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.
Evidence for this? Not just that some places have sunk beneath the waves, because that can be due to local conditions. But world-wide sea levels rising over the long term?
Illegal immigration and deportation:
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
I am under the impression that, except for those paid strictly in cash, deductions for Social Security and Income Taxes are actually the norm. They don’t get credited to the illegal immigrant, of course. But they get paid under whatever (other person’s) SSN he is using. Am I missing something? Or just wrong on that?
Cuts to SS and Medicare:
the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Ryan’s preference is to convert Medicare completely to a voucher system. (Maybe not for existing recipients, in order to get it passed. Although he would personally prefer to do it across the board.)
He may not succeed in getting it passed, but you can bet he will make a serious effort. And I beg leave to doubt that such a change would not amount to a serious cut in benefits for a lot of people.
Repeal Obamacare:
It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless.
Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
About the only part that they really seem intent on repealing is the individual mandate . . . without which the whole thing, including all the parts like no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, collapse.
The individual mandate upsets a lot of people. All of whom somehow miss the fact that, when they get insurance thru their employer, that is exactly an individual mandate. That is, they don’t have the option of getting paid more (the money that would have been paid to the insurance carrier) and going without. They are simply forced to pay for it — the fact that it doesn’t appear as an explicit deduction on their pay slip is packaging, not reality.
In re McKinney (at 11:23)
Climate Change:
Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.
Evidence for this? Not just that some places have sunk beneath the waves, because that can be due to local conditions. But world-wide sea levels rising over the long term?
Illegal immigration and deportation:
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
I am under the impression that, except for those paid strictly in cash, deductions for Social Security and Income Taxes are actually the norm. They don’t get credited to the illegal immigrant, of course. But they get paid under whatever (other person’s) SSN he is using. Am I missing something? Or just wrong on that?
Cuts to SS and Medicare:
the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Ryan’s preference is to convert Medicare completely to a voucher system. (Maybe not for existing recipients, in order to get it passed. Although he would personally prefer to do it across the board.)
He may not succeed in getting it passed, but you can bet he will make a serious effort. And I beg leave to doubt that such a change would not amount to a serious cut in benefits for a lot of people.
Repeal Obamacare:
It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless.
Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
About the only part that they really seem intent on repealing is the individual mandate . . . without which the whole thing, including all the parts like no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, collapse.
The individual mandate upsets a lot of people. All of whom somehow miss the fact that, when they get insurance thru their employer, that is exactly an individual mandate. That is, they don’t have the option of getting paid more (the money that would have been paid to the insurance carrier) and going without. They are simply forced to pay for it — the fact that it doesn’t appear as an explicit deduction on their pay slip is packaging, not reality.
In re McKinney (at 11:23)
Climate Change:
Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years.
Evidence for this? Not just that some places have sunk beneath the waves, because that can be due to local conditions. But world-wide sea levels rising over the long term?
Illegal immigration and deportation:
I’m for amnesty for people who’ve been year at least five years and who are crime free (excluding paying SS or income tax, which is hard to do if you’re illegal).
I am under the impression that, except for those paid strictly in cash, deductions for Social Security and Income Taxes are actually the norm. They don’t get credited to the illegal immigrant, of course. But they get paid under whatever (other person’s) SSN he is using. Am I missing something? Or just wrong on that?
Cuts to SS and Medicare:
the most that will happen on the SS and Medicare side is means testing and raising retirement age.
Ryan’s preference is to convert Medicare completely to a voucher system. (Maybe not for existing recipients, in order to get it passed. Although he would personally prefer to do it across the board.)
He may not succeed in getting it passed, but you can bet he will make a serious effort. And I beg leave to doubt that such a change would not amount to a serious cut in benefits for a lot of people.
Repeal Obamacare:
It’s a good reminder of what Progressives do when they set out to regulate a huge chunk of the economy, but otherwise, it’s pretty useless.
Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
About the only part that they really seem intent on repealing is the individual mandate . . . without which the whole thing, including all the parts like no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, collapse.
The individual mandate upsets a lot of people. All of whom somehow miss the fact that, when they get insurance thru their employer, that is exactly an individual mandate. That is, they don’t have the option of getting paid more (the money that would have been paid to the insurance carrier) and going without. They are simply forced to pay for it — the fact that it doesn’t appear as an explicit deduction on their pay slip is packaging, not reality.
Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
This is such sh1t. In order to get myself a Marlyand Driver’s License I need to submit (a) proof of age/identity, which can be an unexpired passport or certified copy of my birth certificate; (b) proof of “lawful status”; (c) documentation of a valid SSN; (d) two proofs of Marlyand residency.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/drivers/apply/federally-compliant-requirements-list.htm
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long. The same applies if you just want a MD ID card – but then they MAIL it to you instead of handing it to you on the spot.
This is a significant obstacle to voting, akin to a poll tax (which I would argue it is – and does anyone thing the current GOP would ratify the 24th amendment were it proposed today – absolutely not), for anyone.
I mean, if you don’t have a copy of your birth certificate or a current passport – neither of which is unusual (sht1, I don’t think I even have a certified copy of my own birth certificate anywhere) – you’re SOL in MD and can’t vote.
Hooray for Democracy!
Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
This is such sh1t. In order to get myself a Marlyand Driver’s License I need to submit (a) proof of age/identity, which can be an unexpired passport or certified copy of my birth certificate; (b) proof of “lawful status”; (c) documentation of a valid SSN; (d) two proofs of Marlyand residency.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/drivers/apply/federally-compliant-requirements-list.htm
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long. The same applies if you just want a MD ID card – but then they MAIL it to you instead of handing it to you on the spot.
This is a significant obstacle to voting, akin to a poll tax (which I would argue it is – and does anyone thing the current GOP would ratify the 24th amendment were it proposed today – absolutely not), for anyone.
I mean, if you don’t have a copy of your birth certificate or a current passport – neither of which is unusual (sht1, I don’t think I even have a certified copy of my own birth certificate anywhere) – you’re SOL in MD and can’t vote.
Hooray for Democracy!
Photo ID is not a very strict control on voting.
This is such sh1t. In order to get myself a Marlyand Driver’s License I need to submit (a) proof of age/identity, which can be an unexpired passport or certified copy of my birth certificate; (b) proof of “lawful status”; (c) documentation of a valid SSN; (d) two proofs of Marlyand residency.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/drivers/apply/federally-compliant-requirements-list.htm
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long. The same applies if you just want a MD ID card – but then they MAIL it to you instead of handing it to you on the spot.
This is a significant obstacle to voting, akin to a poll tax (which I would argue it is – and does anyone thing the current GOP would ratify the 24th amendment were it proposed today – absolutely not), for anyone.
I mean, if you don’t have a copy of your birth certificate or a current passport – neither of which is unusual (sht1, I don’t think I even have a certified copy of my own birth certificate anywhere) – you’re SOL in MD and can’t vote.
Hooray for Democracy!
Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life.
That’s definitely true. If you are white.
But if you are black? Rather a different deal. At least according to the blacks that I know personally. They are accomplished professionals, and doing well economically. But it still colors their lives, especially outside the narrow environment of the office.
Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life.
That’s definitely true. If you are white.
But if you are black? Rather a different deal. At least according to the blacks that I know personally. They are accomplished professionals, and doing well economically. But it still colors their lives, especially outside the narrow environment of the office.
Race, contrary to Coates and the Critical Race Theory crowd, is not *the* single, most driving factor in US life.
That’s definitely true. If you are white.
But if you are black? Rather a different deal. At least according to the blacks that I know personally. They are accomplished professionals, and doing well economically. But it still colors their lives, especially outside the narrow environment of the office.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
This is an amazing comment. Maybe a perfect demonstration of the kind of blind spot you can get by failing to extrapolate the individual to the universal.
Marty, you’re admitting that you use weighted dice (and bravo for that awareness at least – it’s true everyone does to some degree), but you’re insisting that doesn’t actually make the game rigged, because it’s “individual”.
It’d be one thing if everyone really had their own truly individual, idiosyncratic prejudices. Like your feelings on bass players. Or, say, maybe a manager has a vague sense that black men are good at math, because a couple of coworkers and her brother-in-law all share that trait and are influential in her thinking.
Those prejudices probably still wouldn’t be well justified (humans do confirmation bias excellently) but at least they’d all tend to cancel out. So what if maybe an Asian guy loses out to a black guy if woman above does the hiring. At least the Asian guy can go down the street and find a hiring manager with totally different prejudices.
But systemic prejudices don’t work that way. If there’s a systemic prejudice applying to you, you can’t just go down the street, because the guy hiring down the street has the same one.
Our society has a lot of prejudices like that.
And while it’s true that every group, racial or other, has their own mix, not every group is in a position to act on them. Not from a place of power anyway. So those prejudices aren’t in any way dominant, nor decisive in shaping society outside limited subcultures.
But white (men) were and are in positions of power and influence, over politics, over industry, over culture. To such a degree that our prejudices are the dominant ones.
Perhaps mostly out of long habit at this point, but it’s a habit with a lot of momentum. Such that the culture — and the biases — spill over even into the actions of non-whites and non-men, and you have women making hiring decisions, say (or black police officers) buying into the dominant system, or at least going along with the actions of those around them, and individually helping to enforce a system that technically tends works against them collectively.
Thus we reinforce a system of racist, sexist action, coordinated by our common biases.
And rig the game, without necessarily meaning to.
That’s systemic racism (and sexism) in a nutshell.
If you’ve got a word you prefer over “racist” for that, well I guess I’ll see how it sounds, but racist seems like a perfectly cromulent one to me.
And whatever you call it, the system is still going to be there, and still be something I think we should all agree to try to change.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
This is an amazing comment. Maybe a perfect demonstration of the kind of blind spot you can get by failing to extrapolate the individual to the universal.
Marty, you’re admitting that you use weighted dice (and bravo for that awareness at least – it’s true everyone does to some degree), but you’re insisting that doesn’t actually make the game rigged, because it’s “individual”.
It’d be one thing if everyone really had their own truly individual, idiosyncratic prejudices. Like your feelings on bass players. Or, say, maybe a manager has a vague sense that black men are good at math, because a couple of coworkers and her brother-in-law all share that trait and are influential in her thinking.
Those prejudices probably still wouldn’t be well justified (humans do confirmation bias excellently) but at least they’d all tend to cancel out. So what if maybe an Asian guy loses out to a black guy if woman above does the hiring. At least the Asian guy can go down the street and find a hiring manager with totally different prejudices.
But systemic prejudices don’t work that way. If there’s a systemic prejudice applying to you, you can’t just go down the street, because the guy hiring down the street has the same one.
Our society has a lot of prejudices like that.
And while it’s true that every group, racial or other, has their own mix, not every group is in a position to act on them. Not from a place of power anyway. So those prejudices aren’t in any way dominant, nor decisive in shaping society outside limited subcultures.
But white (men) were and are in positions of power and influence, over politics, over industry, over culture. To such a degree that our prejudices are the dominant ones.
Perhaps mostly out of long habit at this point, but it’s a habit with a lot of momentum. Such that the culture — and the biases — spill over even into the actions of non-whites and non-men, and you have women making hiring decisions, say (or black police officers) buying into the dominant system, or at least going along with the actions of those around them, and individually helping to enforce a system that technically tends works against them collectively.
Thus we reinforce a system of racist, sexist action, coordinated by our common biases.
And rig the game, without necessarily meaning to.
That’s systemic racism (and sexism) in a nutshell.
If you’ve got a word you prefer over “racist” for that, well I guess I’ll see how it sounds, but racist seems like a perfectly cromulent one to me.
And whatever you call it, the system is still going to be there, and still be something I think we should all agree to try to change.
hsh, I am not sure what the confusion is, except that I don’t believe my biases are anyone else’s excuses. And certainly don’t merit any nonfantastical discussion of reparations. I don’t think the reality of individual prejudices shaped by the culture we grew up in is singularly a white phenomenon and I hate the word racist being applied to it as that is a word that is used for much more insidious and specific actions in my world.
This is an amazing comment. Maybe a perfect demonstration of the kind of blind spot you can get by failing to extrapolate the individual to the universal.
Marty, you’re admitting that you use weighted dice (and bravo for that awareness at least – it’s true everyone does to some degree), but you’re insisting that doesn’t actually make the game rigged, because it’s “individual”.
It’d be one thing if everyone really had their own truly individual, idiosyncratic prejudices. Like your feelings on bass players. Or, say, maybe a manager has a vague sense that black men are good at math, because a couple of coworkers and her brother-in-law all share that trait and are influential in her thinking.
Those prejudices probably still wouldn’t be well justified (humans do confirmation bias excellently) but at least they’d all tend to cancel out. So what if maybe an Asian guy loses out to a black guy if woman above does the hiring. At least the Asian guy can go down the street and find a hiring manager with totally different prejudices.
But systemic prejudices don’t work that way. If there’s a systemic prejudice applying to you, you can’t just go down the street, because the guy hiring down the street has the same one.
Our society has a lot of prejudices like that.
And while it’s true that every group, racial or other, has their own mix, not every group is in a position to act on them. Not from a place of power anyway. So those prejudices aren’t in any way dominant, nor decisive in shaping society outside limited subcultures.
But white (men) were and are in positions of power and influence, over politics, over industry, over culture. To such a degree that our prejudices are the dominant ones.
Perhaps mostly out of long habit at this point, but it’s a habit with a lot of momentum. Such that the culture — and the biases — spill over even into the actions of non-whites and non-men, and you have women making hiring decisions, say (or black police officers) buying into the dominant system, or at least going along with the actions of those around them, and individually helping to enforce a system that technically tends works against them collectively.
Thus we reinforce a system of racist, sexist action, coordinated by our common biases.
And rig the game, without necessarily meaning to.
That’s systemic racism (and sexism) in a nutshell.
If you’ve got a word you prefer over “racist” for that, well I guess I’ll see how it sounds, but racist seems like a perfectly cromulent one to me.
And whatever you call it, the system is still going to be there, and still be something I think we should all agree to try to change.
…by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question.
Somehow, I think different people will be involved, and I don’t think we’ll be turning our lives over to them, whatever that means.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
What’s new is the amount of carbon and other waste products we’ve been putting into the atmosphere and oceans since the Industrial Revolution – that thing that happens to coincide with a very recent and unusual rate of warming. It’s really a pay something now/soon or pay a lot (as in, be pretty well fncked) later.
…by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question.
Somehow, I think different people will be involved, and I don’t think we’ll be turning our lives over to them, whatever that means.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
What’s new is the amount of carbon and other waste products we’ve been putting into the atmosphere and oceans since the Industrial Revolution – that thing that happens to coincide with a very recent and unusual rate of warming. It’s really a pay something now/soon or pay a lot (as in, be pretty well fncked) later.
…by turning our lives over the the same people who put together ACA is open to question.
Somehow, I think different people will be involved, and I don’t think we’ll be turning our lives over to them, whatever that means.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
What’s new is the amount of carbon and other waste products we’ve been putting into the atmosphere and oceans since the Industrial Revolution – that thing that happens to coincide with a very recent and unusual rate of warming. It’s really a pay something now/soon or pay a lot (as in, be pretty well fncked) later.
“Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
”
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad. For six years they have been saying the changes to preexisting conditions was good.
This whole “now they are saying” is just bs. They have been saying most of that stuff since before the ACA passed.
It didn’t work as advertised. The “costs of health care” curve has not been bent. The 20 million people that have “gained coverage” include a bunch of people who already had coverage and there are others, like myself that could potentially do better in an individual market that allowed insurance to sold across state lines.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
“Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
”
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad. For six years they have been saying the changes to preexisting conditions was good.
This whole “now they are saying” is just bs. They have been saying most of that stuff since before the ACA passed.
It didn’t work as advertised. The “costs of health care” curve has not been bent. The 20 million people that have “gained coverage” include a bunch of people who already had coverage and there are others, like myself that could potentially do better in an individual market that allowed insurance to sold across state lines.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
“Yup. So useless that, now that they have a prospect of actually enacting a repeal, the Republicans are talking about all the parts that they are going to keep. (Or include in their own plan, which amounts to the same thing.)
”
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad. For six years they have been saying the changes to preexisting conditions was good.
This whole “now they are saying” is just bs. They have been saying most of that stuff since before the ACA passed.
It didn’t work as advertised. The “costs of health care” curve has not been bent. The 20 million people that have “gained coverage” include a bunch of people who already had coverage and there are others, like myself that could potentially do better in an individual market that allowed insurance to sold across state lines.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long.
Ugh, you left out the parts about locating DMV offices in places not served by public transportation. (Not unreasonable if it is only for licenses to operate motor vehicles. But if it is where you have to get to in order to be allowed to vote?)
And restricting the hours the offices are open, making it difficult for those with inflexible working hours to get there. Especially if they have to ride the slower-than-driving public transportation system.
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long.
Ugh, you left out the parts about locating DMV offices in places not served by public transportation. (Not unreasonable if it is only for licenses to operate motor vehicles. But if it is where you have to get to in order to be allowed to vote?)
And restricting the hours the offices are open, making it difficult for those with inflexible working hours to get there. Especially if they have to ride the slower-than-driving public transportation system.
Then I need to personally take a trip to the DMV with all that information, hope that they accept it, and then wait in line for god knows how long.
Ugh, you left out the parts about locating DMV offices in places not served by public transportation. (Not unreasonable if it is only for licenses to operate motor vehicles. But if it is where you have to get to in order to be allowed to vote?)
And restricting the hours the offices are open, making it difficult for those with inflexible working hours to get there. Especially if they have to ride the slower-than-driving public transportation system.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
Marty, you must listen to different Republican politicians than I do. Because I heard a lot of “repeal root and branch” (which I take to mean everything in it) which was NOT linked to any mention of “replace”. And a fair amount of explicit “everything in Obamacare is bad and should be repealed.” Not to say that there wasn’t some “repeal and replace” as well — albeit virtually never linked to anything explicit about what “replace” might entail.
employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.
The fact that the government isn’t the one enforcing it isn’t really relevant to the question of whether it is optional or not. And that fact that it is not optional is what allows insurers to offer it at the price (paid by the employer, but it reduces the money paid to you regardless) it is. Insurance without a mandate only works if you can exclude pre-existing conditions and other factors which increase risk and/or costs.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
Marty, you must listen to different Republican politicians than I do. Because I heard a lot of “repeal root and branch” (which I take to mean everything in it) which was NOT linked to any mention of “replace”. And a fair amount of explicit “everything in Obamacare is bad and should be repealed.” Not to say that there wasn’t some “repeal and replace” as well — albeit virtually never linked to anything explicit about what “replace” might entail.
employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.
The fact that the government isn’t the one enforcing it isn’t really relevant to the question of whether it is optional or not. And that fact that it is not optional is what allows insurers to offer it at the price (paid by the employer, but it reduces the money paid to you regardless) it is. Insurance without a mandate only works if you can exclude pre-existing conditions and other factors which increase risk and/or costs.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
Marty, you must listen to different Republican politicians than I do. Because I heard a lot of “repeal root and branch” (which I take to mean everything in it) which was NOT linked to any mention of “replace”. And a fair amount of explicit “everything in Obamacare is bad and should be repealed.” Not to say that there wasn’t some “repeal and replace” as well — albeit virtually never linked to anything explicit about what “replace” might entail.
employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.
The fact that the government isn’t the one enforcing it isn’t really relevant to the question of whether it is optional or not. And that fact that it is not optional is what allows insurers to offer it at the price (paid by the employer, but it reduces the money paid to you regardless) it is. Insurance without a mandate only works if you can exclude pre-existing conditions and other factors which increase risk and/or costs.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Before Obamacare, there were some employers who would give you a (little) extra cash if you declined their plan, but the amount wasn’t necessarily linked to the actual costs in any particular way. Mostly a way to screw yourself over for a little extra spending money.
I’m not sure it was ever common, and was on the decline well before Obamacare.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Before Obamacare, there were some employers who would give you a (little) extra cash if you declined their plan, but the amount wasn’t necessarily linked to the actual costs in any particular way. Mostly a way to screw yourself over for a little extra spending money.
I’m not sure it was ever common, and was on the decline well before Obamacare.
And no wj, employer healthcare is optional, you don’t get fined by anyone if you don’t buy it. Or, I should say, you didn’t.
Before Obamacare, there were some employers who would give you a (little) extra cash if you declined their plan, but the amount wasn’t necessarily linked to the actual costs in any particular way. Mostly a way to screw yourself over for a little extra spending money.
I’m not sure it was ever common, and was on the decline well before Obamacare.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
????
But, whatever.
(R)’s have the White House, both houses of Congress, and there will probably be a sympathetic majority on the SCOTUS in short order.
Over to you. Let’s see what your guys come up with.
Best of luck.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
????
But, whatever.
(R)’s have the White House, both houses of Congress, and there will probably be a sympathetic majority on the SCOTUS in short order.
Over to you. Let’s see what your guys come up with.
Best of luck.
At no point did any Republican state that every thing that went into the ACA was bad.
????
But, whatever.
(R)’s have the White House, both houses of Congress, and there will probably be a sympathetic majority on the SCOTUS in short order.
Over to you. Let’s see what your guys come up with.
Best of luck.
“Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.”
this is wrong. like illegal wrong.
“Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.”
this is wrong. like illegal wrong.
“Does YOUR employer allow you to opt out of the company health care plan? None of mine ever have. Maybe you get a choice of which plan, but that’s it.”
this is wrong. like illegal wrong.
wj – yes those too! Indeed, even finding out where the DMV is at all if you don’t have access to the internet. Do they even make phone books these days?
wj – yes those too! Indeed, even finding out where the DMV is at all if you don’t have access to the internet. Do they even make phone books these days?
wj – yes those too! Indeed, even finding out where the DMV is at all if you don’t have access to the internet. Do they even make phone books these days?
Marty, what about it is illegal?
Marty, what about it is illegal?
Marty, what about it is illegal?
I mean, seriously, try and get a certified copy of your birth certificate these days without using the internet.
And let’s note the circularity – in order to request (via mail) a copy of a certified birth certificate from the state of my birth requires…. a “current government-issued photo identification (i.e., driver’s license)”!!!!
Plus $20 and a signature viewed by a notary. Plus you need to know how your name appears on your record, both your parent’s names (including maiden name, if any), among other things.
And you can expect to receive the birth certificate in…4-6 weeks.
I mean, seriously, try and get a certified copy of your birth certificate these days without using the internet.
And let’s note the circularity – in order to request (via mail) a copy of a certified birth certificate from the state of my birth requires…. a “current government-issued photo identification (i.e., driver’s license)”!!!!
Plus $20 and a signature viewed by a notary. Plus you need to know how your name appears on your record, both your parent’s names (including maiden name, if any), among other things.
And you can expect to receive the birth certificate in…4-6 weeks.
I mean, seriously, try and get a certified copy of your birth certificate these days without using the internet.
And let’s note the circularity – in order to request (via mail) a copy of a certified birth certificate from the state of my birth requires…. a “current government-issued photo identification (i.e., driver’s license)”!!!!
Plus $20 and a signature viewed by a notary. Plus you need to know how your name appears on your record, both your parent’s names (including maiden name, if any), among other things.
And you can expect to receive the birth certificate in…4-6 weeks.
In fact here is a challenge for the “voter ID is no big deal” crowd, get your state issued picture ID under the following constraints:
1. Start with no “official” documentation, i.e., no current/expired passport, state ID, military ID, social security card or birth certificate. Starting with “unofficial” documentation (e.g., utility bills) is okay for this challenge – but remember you had to get these at some point.
2. No use of non-public internet (or if you want a real challenge – no use of the internet at all). Thus, not your or your employer’s computer, laptop, phone, etc. If you want to use the internet you need to go to the library.
3. No use of personal transportation. Subway, bus, street car, train only. If this proves impossible, take a cab.
IOW, trying getting an ID with no current documentation, personal internet access, or a car.
Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.
In fact here is a challenge for the “voter ID is no big deal” crowd, get your state issued picture ID under the following constraints:
1. Start with no “official” documentation, i.e., no current/expired passport, state ID, military ID, social security card or birth certificate. Starting with “unofficial” documentation (e.g., utility bills) is okay for this challenge – but remember you had to get these at some point.
2. No use of non-public internet (or if you want a real challenge – no use of the internet at all). Thus, not your or your employer’s computer, laptop, phone, etc. If you want to use the internet you need to go to the library.
3. No use of personal transportation. Subway, bus, street car, train only. If this proves impossible, take a cab.
IOW, trying getting an ID with no current documentation, personal internet access, or a car.
Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.
In fact here is a challenge for the “voter ID is no big deal” crowd, get your state issued picture ID under the following constraints:
1. Start with no “official” documentation, i.e., no current/expired passport, state ID, military ID, social security card or birth certificate. Starting with “unofficial” documentation (e.g., utility bills) is okay for this challenge – but remember you had to get these at some point.
2. No use of non-public internet (or if you want a real challenge – no use of the internet at all). Thus, not your or your employer’s computer, laptop, phone, etc. If you want to use the internet you need to go to the library.
3. No use of personal transportation. Subway, bus, street car, train only. If this proves impossible, take a cab.
IOW, trying getting an ID with no current documentation, personal internet access, or a car.
Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.
wj, your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
wj, your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
wj, your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
Yes, except for that, nothing really new.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
Yes, except for that, nothing really new.
Nothing really new here other than there are more of us to be affected.
Yes, except for that, nothing really new.
“Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.”
Do I get to use a phone? Because the last time I had to do that I did it by phone, except the trip to the actual DMV, in about 90 minutes. Then I had a friend to take me to the DMV, but the bus would have taken about a half hour longer.
See when I was poor, just like poor people today, things were harder, but I still had to get them done. Like have an ID so I could go to the bar down the street. Or just the packy. Then later to buy cigarettes.
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
And there are 10’s of million more white people than black people that have to overcome those same obstacles. Because, poor people, all colors.
“Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.”
Do I get to use a phone? Because the last time I had to do that I did it by phone, except the trip to the actual DMV, in about 90 minutes. Then I had a friend to take me to the DMV, but the bus would have taken about a half hour longer.
See when I was poor, just like poor people today, things were harder, but I still had to get them done. Like have an ID so I could go to the bar down the street. Or just the packy. Then later to buy cigarettes.
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
And there are 10’s of million more white people than black people that have to overcome those same obstacles. Because, poor people, all colors.
“Report back on how long it takes and how easy it was.”
Do I get to use a phone? Because the last time I had to do that I did it by phone, except the trip to the actual DMV, in about 90 minutes. Then I had a friend to take me to the DMV, but the bus would have taken about a half hour longer.
See when I was poor, just like poor people today, things were harder, but I still had to get them done. Like have an ID so I could go to the bar down the street. Or just the packy. Then later to buy cigarettes.
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
And there are 10’s of million more white people than black people that have to overcome those same obstacles. Because, poor people, all colors.
wj,
Also, every insurance company takes an inventory of the employees info, age, sex, etc. before making an initial quote for a new policy. Then they review the actual mix of people who enrolled and the claims history when it comes to renewal. Often if you had a high claims year it was cheaper to go to a different provider(meaning broker who would represent several plans) to get to start from the inventory again.
wj,
Also, every insurance company takes an inventory of the employees info, age, sex, etc. before making an initial quote for a new policy. Then they review the actual mix of people who enrolled and the claims history when it comes to renewal. Often if you had a high claims year it was cheaper to go to a different provider(meaning broker who would represent several plans) to get to start from the inventory again.
wj,
Also, every insurance company takes an inventory of the employees info, age, sex, etc. before making an initial quote for a new policy. Then they review the actual mix of people who enrolled and the claims history when it comes to renewal. Often if you had a high claims year it was cheaper to go to a different provider(meaning broker who would represent several plans) to get to start from the inventory again.
Do I get to use a phone?
You had none of your documentation at all?
Do I get to use a phone?
You had none of your documentation at all?
Do I get to use a phone?
You had none of your documentation at all?
No, had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
No, had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
No, had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
I admit that I did not actually call my birth state to explore the difficulty of getting a birth certificate via phone as opposed to through the mail.
I admit that I did not actually call my birth state to explore the difficulty of getting a birth certificate via phone as opposed to through the mail.
I admit that I did not actually call my birth state to explore the difficulty of getting a birth certificate via phone as opposed to through the mail.
your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
Sorry for my poor communication. Let me try again.
At least at all the places I have worked, over the course of more than half a century, all that was offered was “choose which health plan you want.” (emphasis added) No option to take “none of the above” and opt out. You got coverage whether you wanted it or not. That’s what I mean by mandatory: you got covered no matter what you might prefer.
It didn’t appear as a deduction on my pay stub. But it was a significant part of the reason that the company’s budgeted “fully loaded” cost per employee was 2x the nominal salary that the employee got. (Part of that was also the company share of Social security. But that’s nowhere near equal to the total salary.)
If there’s a difference between that and mandatory, I’m at a loss to see what it is. I got coverage, whether I wanted it or not. Payment came out of the same pool of money that paid my salary, which is essentially the same as saying it came out of my salary, even if that wasn’t explicit. (That, after all, is where employer-paid health insurance came from originally: employers were forbidden from giving out raises to their employees during the War. So they gave insurance instead.)
your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
Sorry for my poor communication. Let me try again.
At least at all the places I have worked, over the course of more than half a century, all that was offered was “choose which health plan you want.” (emphasis added) No option to take “none of the above” and opt out. You got coverage whether you wanted it or not. That’s what I mean by mandatory: you got covered no matter what you might prefer.
It didn’t appear as a deduction on my pay stub. But it was a significant part of the reason that the company’s budgeted “fully loaded” cost per employee was 2x the nominal salary that the employee got. (Part of that was also the company share of Social security. But that’s nowhere near equal to the total salary.)
If there’s a difference between that and mandatory, I’m at a loss to see what it is. I got coverage, whether I wanted it or not. Payment came out of the same pool of money that paid my salary, which is essentially the same as saying it came out of my salary, even if that wasn’t explicit. (That, after all, is where employer-paid health insurance came from originally: employers were forbidden from giving out raises to their employees during the War. So they gave insurance instead.)
your employer can’t make you buy insurance. They can make you sign a statement saying you were offered it, but there were tons of young people that just didn’t participate.
Sorry for my poor communication. Let me try again.
At least at all the places I have worked, over the course of more than half a century, all that was offered was “choose which health plan you want.” (emphasis added) No option to take “none of the above” and opt out. You got coverage whether you wanted it or not. That’s what I mean by mandatory: you got covered no matter what you might prefer.
It didn’t appear as a deduction on my pay stub. But it was a significant part of the reason that the company’s budgeted “fully loaded” cost per employee was 2x the nominal salary that the employee got. (Part of that was also the company share of Social security. But that’s nowhere near equal to the total salary.)
If there’s a difference between that and mandatory, I’m at a loss to see what it is. I got coverage, whether I wanted it or not. Payment came out of the same pool of money that paid my salary, which is essentially the same as saying it came out of my salary, even if that wasn’t explicit. (That, after all, is where employer-paid health insurance came from originally: employers were forbidden from giving out raises to their employees during the War. So they gave insurance instead.)
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
Rumored voter fraud…maybe. Sorta depends on the rumor.
Actual voter fraud? No.
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
Rumored voter fraud…maybe. Sorta depends on the rumor.
Actual voter fraud? No.
The number of people that don’t or couldn’t get an id in this country is much smaller than the rumored voter fraud.
Rumored voter fraud…maybe. Sorta depends on the rumor.
Actual voter fraud? No.
had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
Riddle me this. You have to get a photo ID in order to vote, to prevent voter fraud. That is, people voting who are not who they say they are. Right?
To get that, the DMV wants a birth certificate. Which proves you were born in the US (or not), and what your age is. But only as long as the birth certificate is actually yours. If you can just get one over the phone or by mail, how does anyone know that it is really you?
Do birth certificates where you are from come with fingerprints? (Or footprints?) If so, does the DMV actually check that they match? Otherwise, how do they know it’s really yours?
To me, the whole photo ID thing seems like pretty much of a sham. If the DMV was running a full background check on each applicant, that might be another story. But as it is?
And that’s before we get into the whole thing with some places accepting, for example, a hunting license as a valid photo ID for voting. What do you need to have to get one of those? Seriously, I have no idea — does anyone here know.
had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
Riddle me this. You have to get a photo ID in order to vote, to prevent voter fraud. That is, people voting who are not who they say they are. Right?
To get that, the DMV wants a birth certificate. Which proves you were born in the US (or not), and what your age is. But only as long as the birth certificate is actually yours. If you can just get one over the phone or by mail, how does anyone know that it is really you?
Do birth certificates where you are from come with fingerprints? (Or footprints?) If so, does the DMV actually check that they match? Otherwise, how do they know it’s really yours?
To me, the whole photo ID thing seems like pretty much of a sham. If the DMV was running a full background check on each applicant, that might be another story. But as it is?
And that’s before we get into the whole thing with some places accepting, for example, a hunting license as a valid photo ID for voting. What do you need to have to get one of those? Seriously, I have no idea — does anyone here know.
had to get the birth certificate from Texas. Actually was a little surprised how easy that was.
Riddle me this. You have to get a photo ID in order to vote, to prevent voter fraud. That is, people voting who are not who they say they are. Right?
To get that, the DMV wants a birth certificate. Which proves you were born in the US (or not), and what your age is. But only as long as the birth certificate is actually yours. If you can just get one over the phone or by mail, how does anyone know that it is really you?
Do birth certificates where you are from come with fingerprints? (Or footprints?) If so, does the DMV actually check that they match? Otherwise, how do they know it’s really yours?
To me, the whole photo ID thing seems like pretty much of a sham. If the DMV was running a full background check on each applicant, that might be another story. But as it is?
And that’s before we get into the whole thing with some places accepting, for example, a hunting license as a valid photo ID for voting. What do you need to have to get one of those? Seriously, I have no idea — does anyone here know.
Ari Berman writing for Moyers & Co. about one voter’s struggle with the voter ID restrictions in WI.
Ari Berman writing for Moyers & Co. about one voter’s struggle with the voter ID restrictions in WI.
Ari Berman writing for Moyers & Co. about one voter’s struggle with the voter ID restrictions in WI.
The discussion about the vagaries of getting one’s birth certificate, from various states, at various times, is all interesting.
It avoids the basic issue, which is that (R)’s sought, and seek, to prevent people who are likely to vote (D) from voting.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to lost.
The discussion about the vagaries of getting one’s birth certificate, from various states, at various times, is all interesting.
It avoids the basic issue, which is that (R)’s sought, and seek, to prevent people who are likely to vote (D) from voting.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to lost.
The discussion about the vagaries of getting one’s birth certificate, from various states, at various times, is all interesting.
It avoids the basic issue, which is that (R)’s sought, and seek, to prevent people who are likely to vote (D) from voting.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to lost.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to have lost.
This.
I’m sorry folks. We’ve just elected a fascist. All this stuff about the electoral college, and voting for whomever. This is now moot. Hope you get your tax cut, McKinney, and see a whole lot of people lose their health care! How happy you must be! And, you, Marty. Your middle finger must be doin’ some things.
It’s true. What’s happening now is so wrong. Newt Gingrich has suggested pardoning in advance all of Trump’s advisors. Kuwait just cancelled an event at Four Seasons to hold it at a Trump hotel.
Yurtle the Turtle? Do you think he’s going to do anything at all to rein it in? His wife is in the cabinet. Republicans are fascists. I always knew it; the NC legislature has proved it again; and now, it’s done for the country.
All the horrific news of the day from abroad? Obama is still President. We still have a month. A miracle. Any miracle would do to keep Trump out of office. Because beyond that, I’m with the Count.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to have lost.
This.
I’m sorry folks. We’ve just elected a fascist. All this stuff about the electoral college, and voting for whomever. This is now moot. Hope you get your tax cut, McKinney, and see a whole lot of people lose their health care! How happy you must be! And, you, Marty. Your middle finger must be doin’ some things.
It’s true. What’s happening now is so wrong. Newt Gingrich has suggested pardoning in advance all of Trump’s advisors. Kuwait just cancelled an event at Four Seasons to hold it at a Trump hotel.
Yurtle the Turtle? Do you think he’s going to do anything at all to rein it in? His wife is in the cabinet. Republicans are fascists. I always knew it; the NC legislature has proved it again; and now, it’s done for the country.
All the horrific news of the day from abroad? Obama is still President. We still have a month. A miracle. Any miracle would do to keep Trump out of office. Because beyond that, I’m with the Count.
It’s freaking wrong. If they can’t win without cheating, they deserve to have lost.
This.
I’m sorry folks. We’ve just elected a fascist. All this stuff about the electoral college, and voting for whomever. This is now moot. Hope you get your tax cut, McKinney, and see a whole lot of people lose their health care! How happy you must be! And, you, Marty. Your middle finger must be doin’ some things.
It’s true. What’s happening now is so wrong. Newt Gingrich has suggested pardoning in advance all of Trump’s advisors. Kuwait just cancelled an event at Four Seasons to hold it at a Trump hotel.
Yurtle the Turtle? Do you think he’s going to do anything at all to rein it in? His wife is in the cabinet. Republicans are fascists. I always knew it; the NC legislature has proved it again; and now, it’s done for the country.
All the horrific news of the day from abroad? Obama is still President. We still have a month. A miracle. Any miracle would do to keep Trump out of office. Because beyond that, I’m with the Count.
McK,
You are far too cavalier about climate change.
There is no serious problem of any sort with voter fraud of the type the ID laws are claimed to prevent. May I suggest that policies supported by a lot of lies are suspect? May I also suggest that it is not merely the ID requirements, but lots of other practices – closing DMV offices, inadequate numbers of voting machines in certain areas, etc. that, besides suppressing votes “with surgical precision,” pretty much give the game away.
I advise you to look at Ryan’s proposals before minimizing them. His ideas on taxes and Medicare are extreme, on top of which they don’t add up. Among other things, he sharply reduces taxes on investment income, and eliminates the estate tax. Inherit ten million or so and you hardly ever pay the government anything, unlike your gardener. There’s also the 25% cap on pass-through entities profits. I suspect you understand what that means to say, a partner in a successful law firm.
McK,
You are far too cavalier about climate change.
There is no serious problem of any sort with voter fraud of the type the ID laws are claimed to prevent. May I suggest that policies supported by a lot of lies are suspect? May I also suggest that it is not merely the ID requirements, but lots of other practices – closing DMV offices, inadequate numbers of voting machines in certain areas, etc. that, besides suppressing votes “with surgical precision,” pretty much give the game away.
I advise you to look at Ryan’s proposals before minimizing them. His ideas on taxes and Medicare are extreme, on top of which they don’t add up. Among other things, he sharply reduces taxes on investment income, and eliminates the estate tax. Inherit ten million or so and you hardly ever pay the government anything, unlike your gardener. There’s also the 25% cap on pass-through entities profits. I suspect you understand what that means to say, a partner in a successful law firm.
McK,
You are far too cavalier about climate change.
There is no serious problem of any sort with voter fraud of the type the ID laws are claimed to prevent. May I suggest that policies supported by a lot of lies are suspect? May I also suggest that it is not merely the ID requirements, but lots of other practices – closing DMV offices, inadequate numbers of voting machines in certain areas, etc. that, besides suppressing votes “with surgical precision,” pretty much give the game away.
I advise you to look at Ryan’s proposals before minimizing them. His ideas on taxes and Medicare are extreme, on top of which they don’t add up. Among other things, he sharply reduces taxes on investment income, and eliminates the estate tax. Inherit ten million or so and you hardly ever pay the government anything, unlike your gardener. There’s also the 25% cap on pass-through entities profits. I suspect you understand what that means to say, a partner in a successful law firm.
byomtov, you’re making the mistake of believing they care about reason.
byomtov, you’re making the mistake of believing they care about reason.
byomtov, you’re making the mistake of believing they care about reason.
Isn’t it Yertle the Turtle?
Isn’t it Yertle the Turtle?
Isn’t it Yertle the Turtle?
Absolutely right, Ugh.
Absolutely right, Ugh.
Absolutely right, Ugh.
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
He’s pretty focused. We should all have that reptilian brain.
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
He’s pretty focused. We should all have that reptilian brain.
Don’t want him to be confused. 🙂
He’s pretty focused. We should all have that reptilian brain.
“You are far too cavalier about climate change.”
yes.
it has actually been as warm or warmer than what is likely in the next century or so. the planet has warmed and cooled, in cycles.
the warming and cooling has always been accompanied by changes in climate that made some places more pleasant to live, and some less. the sahara used to be sort of lush. greenland used to be a nice-ish lace to live. conversely, bermuda used to be underwater, and may be so again.
what happens when the place where lots of people live becomes less pleasant, less able to sustain life? people move, in large numbers. or, they die, in large numbers.
there are 7 billion people on the planet now, and an enormous number of them live near coasts.
we see, now, the political and social results of a couple of million people trying to get out of the hellhole that iraq and syria have become.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
“You are far too cavalier about climate change.”
yes.
it has actually been as warm or warmer than what is likely in the next century or so. the planet has warmed and cooled, in cycles.
the warming and cooling has always been accompanied by changes in climate that made some places more pleasant to live, and some less. the sahara used to be sort of lush. greenland used to be a nice-ish lace to live. conversely, bermuda used to be underwater, and may be so again.
what happens when the place where lots of people live becomes less pleasant, less able to sustain life? people move, in large numbers. or, they die, in large numbers.
there are 7 billion people on the planet now, and an enormous number of them live near coasts.
we see, now, the political and social results of a couple of million people trying to get out of the hellhole that iraq and syria have become.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
“You are far too cavalier about climate change.”
yes.
it has actually been as warm or warmer than what is likely in the next century or so. the planet has warmed and cooled, in cycles.
the warming and cooling has always been accompanied by changes in climate that made some places more pleasant to live, and some less. the sahara used to be sort of lush. greenland used to be a nice-ish lace to live. conversely, bermuda used to be underwater, and may be so again.
what happens when the place where lots of people live becomes less pleasant, less able to sustain life? people move, in large numbers. or, they die, in large numbers.
there are 7 billion people on the planet now, and an enormous number of them live near coasts.
we see, now, the political and social results of a couple of million people trying to get out of the hellhole that iraq and syria have become.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
We probably don’t have to wait that long, russell. See how Putin and Assad handled Syria.
Aleppo? California?
California is resisting. It’s an economic stronghold. It’s a threat. I hope that someone gives Governor Brown the nuke codes.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
We probably don’t have to wait that long, russell. See how Putin and Assad handled Syria.
Aleppo? California?
California is resisting. It’s an economic stronghold. It’s a threat. I hope that someone gives Governor Brown the nuke codes.
imagine that scaled up by an order of magnitude.
We probably don’t have to wait that long, russell. See how Putin and Assad handled Syria.
Aleppo? California?
California is resisting. It’s an economic stronghold. It’s a threat. I hope that someone gives Governor Brown the nuke codes.
But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. But when it’s Florida disappearing under the waves? Much harder to insist that it’s someone else’s problem.
But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. But when it’s Florida disappearing under the waves? Much harder to insist that it’s someone else’s problem.
But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. But when it’s Florida disappearing under the waves? Much harder to insist that it’s someone else’s problem.
“But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. ”
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
for one simple example.
if a million syrian arabs is a horde, what are 25 or 50 million bangladeshis?
what effect will that have on south asia? which is home to two nuclear powers that are at each others throats?
“lifestyle changes” come in all sorts.
im sorry to say it, but i really think americans have their heads too far up their butts to address any of this in a sensible way. we think we are invulnerable. we aren’t.
“But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. ”
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
for one simple example.
if a million syrian arabs is a horde, what are 25 or 50 million bangladeshis?
what effect will that have on south asia? which is home to two nuclear powers that are at each others throats?
“lifestyle changes” come in all sorts.
im sorry to say it, but i really think americans have their heads too far up their butts to address any of this in a sensible way. we think we are invulnerable. we aren’t.
“But russell, we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced. ”
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
for one simple example.
if a million syrian arabs is a horde, what are 25 or 50 million bangladeshis?
what effect will that have on south asia? which is home to two nuclear powers that are at each others throats?
“lifestyle changes” come in all sorts.
im sorry to say it, but i really think americans have their heads too far up their butts to address any of this in a sensible way. we think we are invulnerable. we aren’t.
McK,
I forgot to address immigration.
First of all, understand that I don’t give a rat’s ass about deporting people who are here illegally, provided they are not criminals or whatnot, which few are.
But Rule of Law types beg to differ. So here is my response.
1. It is inhumane and cruel to deport people who came here as children, legally or otherwise, and have done nothing wrong since.
2. A massive program of deportation necessarily involves massive violation of the rights of many who are here perfectly legally. What is Trump proposing? Everyone whose name ends in “es” (unless it’s Jones) or “ez” is going to be checked out? It can’t be done without that.
3. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, in the aggregate do no harm to us (their crime rates, BTW, are lower than those of native-born citizens) and do a lot of productive work.
4. There are more productive uses of law enforcement resources than finding a Mexican drywall installer here illegally and sending him home.
So basically, screw it. It’s a bad idea.
McK,
I forgot to address immigration.
First of all, understand that I don’t give a rat’s ass about deporting people who are here illegally, provided they are not criminals or whatnot, which few are.
But Rule of Law types beg to differ. So here is my response.
1. It is inhumane and cruel to deport people who came here as children, legally or otherwise, and have done nothing wrong since.
2. A massive program of deportation necessarily involves massive violation of the rights of many who are here perfectly legally. What is Trump proposing? Everyone whose name ends in “es” (unless it’s Jones) or “ez” is going to be checked out? It can’t be done without that.
3. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, in the aggregate do no harm to us (their crime rates, BTW, are lower than those of native-born citizens) and do a lot of productive work.
4. There are more productive uses of law enforcement resources than finding a Mexican drywall installer here illegally and sending him home.
So basically, screw it. It’s a bad idea.
McK,
I forgot to address immigration.
First of all, understand that I don’t give a rat’s ass about deporting people who are here illegally, provided they are not criminals or whatnot, which few are.
But Rule of Law types beg to differ. So here is my response.
1. It is inhumane and cruel to deport people who came here as children, legally or otherwise, and have done nothing wrong since.
2. A massive program of deportation necessarily involves massive violation of the rights of many who are here perfectly legally. What is Trump proposing? Everyone whose name ends in “es” (unless it’s Jones) or “ez” is going to be checked out? It can’t be done without that.
3. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, in the aggregate do no harm to us (their crime rates, BTW, are lower than those of native-born citizens) and do a lot of productive work.
4. There are more productive uses of law enforcement resources than finding a Mexican drywall installer here illegally and sending him home.
So basically, screw it. It’s a bad idea.
I forgot to say, byomtov. It’s not just that they don’t care about reason. They don’t care at all.
They don’t care about people, fairness, justice. They’re “Republicans”. And you now know what that’s a euphemism for.
I forgot to say, byomtov. It’s not just that they don’t care about reason. They don’t care at all.
They don’t care about people, fairness, justice. They’re “Republicans”. And you now know what that’s a euphemism for.
I forgot to say, byomtov. It’s not just that they don’t care about reason. They don’t care at all.
They don’t care about people, fairness, justice. They’re “Republicans”. And you now know what that’s a euphemism for.
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
I really, really have to remember to use the
/sarcasm
tag!
What would have been clearer is: “we think we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced.”
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
I really, really have to remember to use the
/sarcasm
tag!
What would have been clearer is: “we think we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced.”
not if the result is the dissolution of the EU, or the continued rise of right-wing extremism.
I really, really have to remember to use the
/sarcasm
tag!
What would have been clearer is: “we think we can ignore hordes of Iraqis and Syrians getting displaced.”
i get that wj. my comment was for the benefit of the irony-impaired.
🙂
i get that wj. my comment was for the benefit of the irony-impaired.
🙂
i get that wj. my comment was for the benefit of the irony-impaired.
🙂
It’s really a shame that I have to live on the same planet as McKinneyTexas, because I would purely love to run a side-by-side experiment.
On McKinney’s planet, Americans would carry on extracting fossil carbon and pumping it into air as CO2 because climate change due to global warming resulting from human CO2 production is no big deal, and money is a finite resource but fossil fuels are not.
On my planet, Americans would consciously and deliberately wean themselves off fossil fuels and encourage other nations to do so. Americans would spend money (and earn money!) inventing and deploying more efficient systems (from lightbulbs to cars, to houses, to power grids, to cities and transportation networks) and even exporting some of those things to the rest of the world.
It would be interesting to compare our two planets after a few decades. In particular, and perhaps of special interest to McKinney, it would be interesting to see on which planet the DJIA would be higher in 50 years. I’d try to live that long just to be able to tell McKinney “I told you so”.
Alas, McKinney and I have to share THIS planet.
A propos of nothing, there’s a scene in the movie version of “The Hunt for Red October” in which the Soviet sub captain orders his ensign to take the safeties off the torpedoes they’re firing at the wily Sean Connery who (in command of the Red October) is closing range too fast. There follows a fantasmagorical melee involving the USS Dallas and some surface ships, at the end of which the Soviet torpedoes end up bearing down back on the Soviet sub. The ensign turns to the captain and says, “You arrogant man, you’ve killed us!” Explosion. Cut to black. Scene.
Don’t know why that snippet from an old movie keeps coming into my head every time I read Mckinney on Climate. Must be crosswired synapses or something.
–TP
It’s really a shame that I have to live on the same planet as McKinneyTexas, because I would purely love to run a side-by-side experiment.
On McKinney’s planet, Americans would carry on extracting fossil carbon and pumping it into air as CO2 because climate change due to global warming resulting from human CO2 production is no big deal, and money is a finite resource but fossil fuels are not.
On my planet, Americans would consciously and deliberately wean themselves off fossil fuels and encourage other nations to do so. Americans would spend money (and earn money!) inventing and deploying more efficient systems (from lightbulbs to cars, to houses, to power grids, to cities and transportation networks) and even exporting some of those things to the rest of the world.
It would be interesting to compare our two planets after a few decades. In particular, and perhaps of special interest to McKinney, it would be interesting to see on which planet the DJIA would be higher in 50 years. I’d try to live that long just to be able to tell McKinney “I told you so”.
Alas, McKinney and I have to share THIS planet.
A propos of nothing, there’s a scene in the movie version of “The Hunt for Red October” in which the Soviet sub captain orders his ensign to take the safeties off the torpedoes they’re firing at the wily Sean Connery who (in command of the Red October) is closing range too fast. There follows a fantasmagorical melee involving the USS Dallas and some surface ships, at the end of which the Soviet torpedoes end up bearing down back on the Soviet sub. The ensign turns to the captain and says, “You arrogant man, you’ve killed us!” Explosion. Cut to black. Scene.
Don’t know why that snippet from an old movie keeps coming into my head every time I read Mckinney on Climate. Must be crosswired synapses or something.
–TP
It’s really a shame that I have to live on the same planet as McKinneyTexas, because I would purely love to run a side-by-side experiment.
On McKinney’s planet, Americans would carry on extracting fossil carbon and pumping it into air as CO2 because climate change due to global warming resulting from human CO2 production is no big deal, and money is a finite resource but fossil fuels are not.
On my planet, Americans would consciously and deliberately wean themselves off fossil fuels and encourage other nations to do so. Americans would spend money (and earn money!) inventing and deploying more efficient systems (from lightbulbs to cars, to houses, to power grids, to cities and transportation networks) and even exporting some of those things to the rest of the world.
It would be interesting to compare our two planets after a few decades. In particular, and perhaps of special interest to McKinney, it would be interesting to see on which planet the DJIA would be higher in 50 years. I’d try to live that long just to be able to tell McKinney “I told you so”.
Alas, McKinney and I have to share THIS planet.
A propos of nothing, there’s a scene in the movie version of “The Hunt for Red October” in which the Soviet sub captain orders his ensign to take the safeties off the torpedoes they’re firing at the wily Sean Connery who (in command of the Red October) is closing range too fast. There follows a fantasmagorical melee involving the USS Dallas and some surface ships, at the end of which the Soviet torpedoes end up bearing down back on the Soviet sub. The ensign turns to the captain and says, “You arrogant man, you’ve killed us!” Explosion. Cut to black. Scene.
Don’t know why that snippet from an old movie keeps coming into my head every time I read Mckinney on Climate. Must be crosswired synapses or something.
–TP
The voter ID thing illustrates exactly what is wrong with Democrats dealing with Republican shennanigans. Just deal with it and move on. Democrats have been complaining bitterly about Voter ID laws for decades, but they never act to defuse them. Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID. It would be useful for those people who don’t have IDs to have them anyway. In California it would cost less than the one year overrun of the never going be fully operational bullet train.
If you really are worked up about voting being a right that is interfered with over voter ID laws, put it to rest and move on. It might even bring the elusive never-voters into the fold. Letting it plague you for decades is just silly. If you see something that is working in your opponents favor, don’t whine about it. DEFUSE IT.
The voter ID thing illustrates exactly what is wrong with Democrats dealing with Republican shennanigans. Just deal with it and move on. Democrats have been complaining bitterly about Voter ID laws for decades, but they never act to defuse them. Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID. It would be useful for those people who don’t have IDs to have them anyway. In California it would cost less than the one year overrun of the never going be fully operational bullet train.
If you really are worked up about voting being a right that is interfered with over voter ID laws, put it to rest and move on. It might even bring the elusive never-voters into the fold. Letting it plague you for decades is just silly. If you see something that is working in your opponents favor, don’t whine about it. DEFUSE IT.
The voter ID thing illustrates exactly what is wrong with Democrats dealing with Republican shennanigans. Just deal with it and move on. Democrats have been complaining bitterly about Voter ID laws for decades, but they never act to defuse them. Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID. It would be useful for those people who don’t have IDs to have them anyway. In California it would cost less than the one year overrun of the never going be fully operational bullet train.
If you really are worked up about voting being a right that is interfered with over voter ID laws, put it to rest and move on. It might even bring the elusive never-voters into the fold. Letting it plague you for decades is just silly. If you see something that is working in your opponents favor, don’t whine about it. DEFUSE IT.
Government issued photo IDs are necessary to combat voter fraud. But giving a government ID to everyone would be a horrible infringement on personal liberty, and is thus something to be opposed with all vigor.
Simply. Easy to understand. No problem. As long as you aren’t bothered by the blatant internal contradiction.
Government issued photo IDs are necessary to combat voter fraud. But giving a government ID to everyone would be a horrible infringement on personal liberty, and is thus something to be opposed with all vigor.
Simply. Easy to understand. No problem. As long as you aren’t bothered by the blatant internal contradiction.
Government issued photo IDs are necessary to combat voter fraud. But giving a government ID to everyone would be a horrible infringement on personal liberty, and is thus something to be opposed with all vigor.
Simply. Easy to understand. No problem. As long as you aren’t bothered by the blatant internal contradiction.
I live in Durham, NC, a solidly “blue” city (with an African-American mayor) which always votes about 75-80% Democratic in an often “red” state. Republican governor Pat McCrory, losing the election by nearly 10,000 votes, first called for a statewide recount but then allowed as how he’d accept just a recount of Durham, where there had been a snafu with some of the machines during the count.
Several days later – and $35,000 or more worth of expenses (to be paid by Durham taxpayers, apparently) – they completed the recount. McCrory _lost_ about 4 votes.
No actual fraud was found in the entire state. McCrory will not be governor again. So he just signed some bills (passed by the GOP-dominated legislature) in a “special session” nominally called to deal with hurricane clean-up that will restrict the power of the next governor, a Democrat. In a session from which the public, including the press, was excluded.
I can’t speak for the whole country, but the NC Republicans are shameless partisan hacks. And electoral “fraud” is itself a fraud.
I live in Durham, NC, a solidly “blue” city (with an African-American mayor) which always votes about 75-80% Democratic in an often “red” state. Republican governor Pat McCrory, losing the election by nearly 10,000 votes, first called for a statewide recount but then allowed as how he’d accept just a recount of Durham, where there had been a snafu with some of the machines during the count.
Several days later – and $35,000 or more worth of expenses (to be paid by Durham taxpayers, apparently) – they completed the recount. McCrory _lost_ about 4 votes.
No actual fraud was found in the entire state. McCrory will not be governor again. So he just signed some bills (passed by the GOP-dominated legislature) in a “special session” nominally called to deal with hurricane clean-up that will restrict the power of the next governor, a Democrat. In a session from which the public, including the press, was excluded.
I can’t speak for the whole country, but the NC Republicans are shameless partisan hacks. And electoral “fraud” is itself a fraud.
I live in Durham, NC, a solidly “blue” city (with an African-American mayor) which always votes about 75-80% Democratic in an often “red” state. Republican governor Pat McCrory, losing the election by nearly 10,000 votes, first called for a statewide recount but then allowed as how he’d accept just a recount of Durham, where there had been a snafu with some of the machines during the count.
Several days later – and $35,000 or more worth of expenses (to be paid by Durham taxpayers, apparently) – they completed the recount. McCrory _lost_ about 4 votes.
No actual fraud was found in the entire state. McCrory will not be governor again. So he just signed some bills (passed by the GOP-dominated legislature) in a “special session” nominally called to deal with hurricane clean-up that will restrict the power of the next governor, a Democrat. In a session from which the public, including the press, was excluded.
I can’t speak for the whole country, but the NC Republicans are shameless partisan hacks. And electoral “fraud” is itself a fraud.
“Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID”
that’s a great idea, and it would be received as the mark of the freaking beast by about half the country.
i think we’re only just beginning to grasp how profoundly the country is broken.
“Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID”
that’s a great idea, and it would be received as the mark of the freaking beast by about half the country.
i think we’re only just beginning to grasp how profoundly the country is broken.
“Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone) they can just issue govenment picture IDs and create a system like Germany the Netherlands to give all eligible voters ID”
that’s a great idea, and it would be received as the mark of the freaking beast by about half the country.
i think we’re only just beginning to grasp how profoundly the country is broken.
Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone)
You mean the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s? You also mean during the financial crisis of 2008? How well do you think a push for gubmint-issued ID by Dems would have gone over with Obama freshly inauguarated? And dealing with what is apparently now termed the Great Recession?
Hindsight is 20/20, but Obama spent the first two years of his admin (and arguably a lot longer) _not_ being pushy with his legislative priorities. A number of people (including me) wish he had been more aggressive, but I would think everyone understands to some extent what strictures he was under.
Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone)
You mean the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s? You also mean during the financial crisis of 2008? How well do you think a push for gubmint-issued ID by Dems would have gone over with Obama freshly inauguarated? And dealing with what is apparently now termed the Great Recession?
Hindsight is 20/20, but Obama spent the first two years of his admin (and arguably a lot longer) _not_ being pushy with his legislative priorities. A number of people (including me) wish he had been more aggressive, but I would think everyone understands to some extent what strictures he was under.
Any time Democrats are in control of a state or the federal government (2008-2010 anyone)
You mean the end of Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s? You also mean during the financial crisis of 2008? How well do you think a push for gubmint-issued ID by Dems would have gone over with Obama freshly inauguarated? And dealing with what is apparently now termed the Great Recession?
Hindsight is 20/20, but Obama spent the first two years of his admin (and arguably a lot longer) _not_ being pushy with his legislative priorities. A number of people (including me) wish he had been more aggressive, but I would think everyone understands to some extent what strictures he was under.
The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!!
Paltry indeed, for the vast majority. For those with million-dollar incomes it’s tidy $36K (or close to it) a year. Now, maybe you think 39.6% is unfair – I don’t – but even if it is, is that unfairness really one of the most important issues we have to deal with?
The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!!
Paltry indeed, for the vast majority. For those with million-dollar incomes it’s tidy $36K (or close to it) a year. Now, maybe you think 39.6% is unfair – I don’t – but even if it is, is that unfairness really one of the most important issues we have to deal with?
The last massive tax cut passed by Republicans dropped the marginal rate from 39.6 to36. Yuuuuggge!!!!!!!
Paltry indeed, for the vast majority. For those with million-dollar incomes it’s tidy $36K (or close to it) a year. Now, maybe you think 39.6% is unfair – I don’t – but even if it is, is that unfairness really one of the most important issues we have to deal with?
Hell just froze over. I never expected to see this pov in the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-in-the-age-of-trump.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&_r=0
Hell just froze over. I never expected to see this pov in the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-in-the-age-of-trump.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&_r=0
Hell just froze over. I never expected to see this pov in the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-in-the-age-of-trump.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&_r=0
From Donald’s link, and not something I previously knew:
From Donald’s link, and not something I previously knew:
From Donald’s link, and not something I previously knew:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al-assad-isis-more-propaganda-than-news-a7479901.html
One more link. This is about how the Western press has allowed jihadis to control the narrative in Syria. Reporters can’t go to rebel held areas because they are likely to be kidnapped or killed. So they rely almost entirely on people there who are under the same pressures. ( This largely isn’t true in the I P conflict, though Israel supporters try to claim it is.)
I think this worked in the US government’s favor in Iraq. Reporters were in danger by themselves. In a way it also works in its favor in Syria, though in this case we are on the side of the people fighting with Al Qaeda and our side is losing on the battlefield and only winning in the propaganda war over whose atrocities matter. Assad and Putin would like to win both, but will settle for winning the first.
No telling what Trump will do, but a world where all info comes either from the government or government leakers or people with an agenda could only be in his favor. A rational person has to be suspicious of the MSM on some subjects, an environment that is ideal for people who lie about everything.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al-assad-isis-more-propaganda-than-news-a7479901.html
One more link. This is about how the Western press has allowed jihadis to control the narrative in Syria. Reporters can’t go to rebel held areas because they are likely to be kidnapped or killed. So they rely almost entirely on people there who are under the same pressures. ( This largely isn’t true in the I P conflict, though Israel supporters try to claim it is.)
I think this worked in the US government’s favor in Iraq. Reporters were in danger by themselves. In a way it also works in its favor in Syria, though in this case we are on the side of the people fighting with Al Qaeda and our side is losing on the battlefield and only winning in the propaganda war over whose atrocities matter. Assad and Putin would like to win both, but will settle for winning the first.
No telling what Trump will do, but a world where all info comes either from the government or government leakers or people with an agenda could only be in his favor. A rational person has to be suspicious of the MSM on some subjects, an environment that is ideal for people who lie about everything.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-crisis-syrian-war-bashar-al-assad-isis-more-propaganda-than-news-a7479901.html
One more link. This is about how the Western press has allowed jihadis to control the narrative in Syria. Reporters can’t go to rebel held areas because they are likely to be kidnapped or killed. So they rely almost entirely on people there who are under the same pressures. ( This largely isn’t true in the I P conflict, though Israel supporters try to claim it is.)
I think this worked in the US government’s favor in Iraq. Reporters were in danger by themselves. In a way it also works in its favor in Syria, though in this case we are on the side of the people fighting with Al Qaeda and our side is losing on the battlefield and only winning in the propaganda war over whose atrocities matter. Assad and Putin would like to win both, but will settle for winning the first.
No telling what Trump will do, but a world where all info comes either from the government or government leakers or people with an agenda could only be in his favor. A rational person has to be suspicious of the MSM on some subjects, an environment that is ideal for people who lie about everything.
hsh, the Stern Gang is a not-insignificant player in Israel’s formative years that generally gets talked about very little, with the lovely tidbit you highlight there being only one of many reasons.
hsh, the Stern Gang is a not-insignificant player in Israel’s formative years that generally gets talked about very little, with the lovely tidbit you highlight there being only one of many reasons.
hsh, the Stern Gang is a not-insignificant player in Israel’s formative years that generally gets talked about very little, with the lovely tidbit you highlight there being only one of many reasons.
McK,
Medicare.
Head of OMB. Oh, and he likes the idea of defaulting on the national debt too. He and Ryan – the GOP’s go-to guy on budget issues.
McK,
Medicare.
Head of OMB. Oh, and he likes the idea of defaulting on the national debt too. He and Ryan – the GOP’s go-to guy on budget issues.
McK,
Medicare.
Head of OMB. Oh, and he likes the idea of defaulting on the national debt too. He and Ryan – the GOP’s go-to guy on budget issues.
Maybe they’re gonna go short on the dollar and then push us to default.
I don’t even know if that would be illegal anymore.
“The POTUS can’t have a conflict of interest!”
Maybe they’re gonna go short on the dollar and then push us to default.
I don’t even know if that would be illegal anymore.
“The POTUS can’t have a conflict of interest!”
Maybe they’re gonna go short on the dollar and then push us to default.
I don’t even know if that would be illegal anymore.
“The POTUS can’t have a conflict of interest!”
This happens to white doctors all the time:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/20/a-black-doctor-barred-from-helping-on-a-flight-gets-an-apology-and-triggers-a-policy-change/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_doctorflight-0450pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bc064976b524
This happens to white doctors all the time:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/20/a-black-doctor-barred-from-helping-on-a-flight-gets-an-apology-and-triggers-a-policy-change/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_doctorflight-0450pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bc064976b524
This happens to white doctors all the time:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/20/a-black-doctor-barred-from-helping-on-a-flight-gets-an-apology-and-triggers-a-policy-change/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_doctorflight-0450pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bc064976b524
The headline needs an “n” after “brow”…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800
The headline needs an “n” after “brow”…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800
The headline needs an “n” after “brow”…
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-congress-republicans-232800
Fnckrs
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416
Fnckrs
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416
Fnckrs
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416
Unconstitutional* Fnckers, please.
*Subject to the appointment of SC Fnckers, of course.
Unconstitutional* Fnckers, please.
*Subject to the appointment of SC Fnckers, of course.
Unconstitutional* Fnckers, please.
*Subject to the appointment of SC Fnckers, of course.
I was listening to an interview on Radio Times about Guantanamo this morning. Obama didn’t close it, but he stopped (supposedly, and at least for the most part) the torture happening there.
What happens when Trump takes office? Waterboarding and a lot worse, let me tell you?
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11. We had the acute effects, among them the drumbeat for the Iraq invasion. While that ill-conceived war is still costing us, many people have come to recognize that it was a mistake, so I’d say we “got over” that particular spasm.
But I feel like there was some sort of underlying moral rot that set in, and Trump is the result of it.
The attacks were traumatic, and we didn’t react well to them, but they didn’t destroy the country, right? Well, not so fast.
It’s like we were stabbed with a knife dipped in a slow-acting poison. We bled for a while, but the wound eventually healed with a bit of scarring. Not as big a deal as it may have seemed initially.
But now the poison may be starting to kill us. I guess we’ll see.
I was listening to an interview on Radio Times about Guantanamo this morning. Obama didn’t close it, but he stopped (supposedly, and at least for the most part) the torture happening there.
What happens when Trump takes office? Waterboarding and a lot worse, let me tell you?
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11. We had the acute effects, among them the drumbeat for the Iraq invasion. While that ill-conceived war is still costing us, many people have come to recognize that it was a mistake, so I’d say we “got over” that particular spasm.
But I feel like there was some sort of underlying moral rot that set in, and Trump is the result of it.
The attacks were traumatic, and we didn’t react well to them, but they didn’t destroy the country, right? Well, not so fast.
It’s like we were stabbed with a knife dipped in a slow-acting poison. We bled for a while, but the wound eventually healed with a bit of scarring. Not as big a deal as it may have seemed initially.
But now the poison may be starting to kill us. I guess we’ll see.
I was listening to an interview on Radio Times about Guantanamo this morning. Obama didn’t close it, but he stopped (supposedly, and at least for the most part) the torture happening there.
What happens when Trump takes office? Waterboarding and a lot worse, let me tell you?
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11. We had the acute effects, among them the drumbeat for the Iraq invasion. While that ill-conceived war is still costing us, many people have come to recognize that it was a mistake, so I’d say we “got over” that particular spasm.
But I feel like there was some sort of underlying moral rot that set in, and Trump is the result of it.
The attacks were traumatic, and we didn’t react well to them, but they didn’t destroy the country, right? Well, not so fast.
It’s like we were stabbed with a knife dipped in a slow-acting poison. We bled for a while, but the wound eventually healed with a bit of scarring. Not as big a deal as it may have seemed initially.
But now the poison may be starting to kill us. I guess we’ll see.
The Madness of King Donald…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/21/mad-alex-donald-trump-letters-abuse-ex-scottish-first-minister
The Madness of King Donald…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/21/mad-alex-donald-trump-letters-abuse-ex-scottish-first-minister
The Madness of King Donald…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/21/mad-alex-donald-trump-letters-abuse-ex-scottish-first-minister
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
It showed, via the Iraq war, that Goering was right.
And that if you have the President’s approval, you can do anything.
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
It showed, via the Iraq war, that Goering was right.
And that if you have the President’s approval, you can do anything.
It got me thinking about the longer-term effects of 9/11.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
It showed, via the Iraq war, that Goering was right.
And that if you have the President’s approval, you can do anything.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this, and Republicans have embraced it in rejecting even manifestly successful social programs. Americans are tired of being a “great power” when that means enforcing international stability and “the great peace” with all of the complexity and “hypocrisy” that entails. We’ve lost any collective aspiration that government can be beneficial, even when it demonstratively is. We see corruption even when it is barely there. Of course, as a giant, powerful human institution, plenty wrong is done by government. But instead of working to make it better, the institutions themselves are blamed.
Patriotism among liberals (again, not as a “USA! USA! nativist proposition, but as a collective pride in the ideals of liberal democracy, etc.) is unfashionable, and almost nonexistent. Undermining our own liberal president and candidates is what we do best. Cheering on people who have betrayed the government by giving away its classified information was de rigeur. I’m not sure how we could expect to keep winning elections when our civic hobby has been nitpicking our own government, even when we had limited control of it, even as fascism has relentlessly crept into the Republican party. Then, we buy into Republican lies that we’ve “failed the working class” even though the Democratic party, when it is in power, consistently improves the economy as a whole, and offers social safety net benefits to all classes of people, and only falls short because a Republican Congress shamelessly obstructs our programs, and even our Constitutional prerogatives, to the detriment of its own constituents. Still we fight among ourselves, trying to point fingers at which Democrat betrayed which constituency the most.
I hate the fascists, but frankly most of the “progressives” who themselves do nothing but join in witch hunts against their own people, have also been really tiresome. Of course, now we can (yet again, even after Bush/Gore happened) all be horrified together.
I hope we have another chance. Obama was an almost perfect example of what an ideal civic leader (and citizen) looks like. We could have kept good government going. What a shame we didn’t.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
There is something very special about the ideals that I was brought up to believe the United States could embrace. A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people. This is a rare system, and it’s hard to stay true to it. We, the people, have failed it.
I only hope that through a commitment to keep trying, we can do better to keep the faith.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this, and Republicans have embraced it in rejecting even manifestly successful social programs. Americans are tired of being a “great power” when that means enforcing international stability and “the great peace” with all of the complexity and “hypocrisy” that entails. We’ve lost any collective aspiration that government can be beneficial, even when it demonstratively is. We see corruption even when it is barely there. Of course, as a giant, powerful human institution, plenty wrong is done by government. But instead of working to make it better, the institutions themselves are blamed.
Patriotism among liberals (again, not as a “USA! USA! nativist proposition, but as a collective pride in the ideals of liberal democracy, etc.) is unfashionable, and almost nonexistent. Undermining our own liberal president and candidates is what we do best. Cheering on people who have betrayed the government by giving away its classified information was de rigeur. I’m not sure how we could expect to keep winning elections when our civic hobby has been nitpicking our own government, even when we had limited control of it, even as fascism has relentlessly crept into the Republican party. Then, we buy into Republican lies that we’ve “failed the working class” even though the Democratic party, when it is in power, consistently improves the economy as a whole, and offers social safety net benefits to all classes of people, and only falls short because a Republican Congress shamelessly obstructs our programs, and even our Constitutional prerogatives, to the detriment of its own constituents. Still we fight among ourselves, trying to point fingers at which Democrat betrayed which constituency the most.
I hate the fascists, but frankly most of the “progressives” who themselves do nothing but join in witch hunts against their own people, have also been really tiresome. Of course, now we can (yet again, even after Bush/Gore happened) all be horrified together.
I hope we have another chance. Obama was an almost perfect example of what an ideal civic leader (and citizen) looks like. We could have kept good government going. What a shame we didn’t.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
There is something very special about the ideals that I was brought up to believe the United States could embrace. A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people. This is a rare system, and it’s hard to stay true to it. We, the people, have failed it.
I only hope that through a commitment to keep trying, we can do better to keep the faith.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this, and Republicans have embraced it in rejecting even manifestly successful social programs. Americans are tired of being a “great power” when that means enforcing international stability and “the great peace” with all of the complexity and “hypocrisy” that entails. We’ve lost any collective aspiration that government can be beneficial, even when it demonstratively is. We see corruption even when it is barely there. Of course, as a giant, powerful human institution, plenty wrong is done by government. But instead of working to make it better, the institutions themselves are blamed.
Patriotism among liberals (again, not as a “USA! USA! nativist proposition, but as a collective pride in the ideals of liberal democracy, etc.) is unfashionable, and almost nonexistent. Undermining our own liberal president and candidates is what we do best. Cheering on people who have betrayed the government by giving away its classified information was de rigeur. I’m not sure how we could expect to keep winning elections when our civic hobby has been nitpicking our own government, even when we had limited control of it, even as fascism has relentlessly crept into the Republican party. Then, we buy into Republican lies that we’ve “failed the working class” even though the Democratic party, when it is in power, consistently improves the economy as a whole, and offers social safety net benefits to all classes of people, and only falls short because a Republican Congress shamelessly obstructs our programs, and even our Constitutional prerogatives, to the detriment of its own constituents. Still we fight among ourselves, trying to point fingers at which Democrat betrayed which constituency the most.
I hate the fascists, but frankly most of the “progressives” who themselves do nothing but join in witch hunts against their own people, have also been really tiresome. Of course, now we can (yet again, even after Bush/Gore happened) all be horrified together.
I hope we have another chance. Obama was an almost perfect example of what an ideal civic leader (and citizen) looks like. We could have kept good government going. What a shame we didn’t.
At a minimum it showed that there is nothing special about the United States and it’s citizens, we’re just as likely as any other group of folk to throw our supposed principles and beliefs aside (rule of law, torture, the first and fourth amendments) if we feel threatened.
There is something very special about the ideals that I was brought up to believe the United States could embrace. A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people. This is a rare system, and it’s hard to stay true to it. We, the people, have failed it.
I only hope that through a commitment to keep trying, we can do better to keep the faith.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this…
Specifically as Trump is concerned, I’d say 9/11 was a necessary but not sufficient precondition for overlooking, and even embracing in some cases, his most fascistic tendencies. The glee for torture and the fear-mongering about immigrants don’t come from cynicism about government. They aren’t aspects of libertarianism.
Yes, that cynicism is a big part of what got Trump elected, but I don’t think it happens without people abandoning ideals that are limitations on what government can do. If we had elected Ron Paul, maybe 9/11 would be a non-factor. But that’s not what happened.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this…
Specifically as Trump is concerned, I’d say 9/11 was a necessary but not sufficient precondition for overlooking, and even embracing in some cases, his most fascistic tendencies. The glee for torture and the fear-mongering about immigrants don’t come from cynicism about government. They aren’t aspects of libertarianism.
Yes, that cynicism is a big part of what got Trump elected, but I don’t think it happens without people abandoning ideals that are limitations on what government can do. If we had elected Ron Paul, maybe 9/11 would be a non-factor. But that’s not what happened.
I disagree that what’s happening now is a result of 9/11. It’s a result of a cynicism about government that’s been growing throughout my lifetime.
The libertarian movement is one facet of this…
Specifically as Trump is concerned, I’d say 9/11 was a necessary but not sufficient precondition for overlooking, and even embracing in some cases, his most fascistic tendencies. The glee for torture and the fear-mongering about immigrants don’t come from cynicism about government. They aren’t aspects of libertarianism.
Yes, that cynicism is a big part of what got Trump elected, but I don’t think it happens without people abandoning ideals that are limitations on what government can do. If we had elected Ron Paul, maybe 9/11 would be a non-factor. But that’s not what happened.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned. Under Obama whistleblowers were prosecuted and torturers allowed to go free. The CIA spied on the Senate just two years ago and Obama refuses to release the full report.
And Morell endorsed Clinton in the NYT. A few days later he said this on Charlie Rose–
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
Now of course liberals love the CIA. I think Trump will be a disaster on several fronts, but some of his opponents are playing their own games. Personally with people like Morell I suspect bitterness over the fact that we didn’t do more in Syria. We did too damn much.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned. Under Obama whistleblowers were prosecuted and torturers allowed to go free. The CIA spied on the Senate just two years ago and Obama refuses to release the full report.
And Morell endorsed Clinton in the NYT. A few days later he said this on Charlie Rose–
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
Now of course liberals love the CIA. I think Trump will be a disaster on several fronts, but some of his opponents are playing their own games. Personally with people like Morell I suspect bitterness over the fact that we didn’t do more in Syria. We did too damn much.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned. Under Obama whistleblowers were prosecuted and torturers allowed to go free. The CIA spied on the Senate just two years ago and Obama refuses to release the full report.
And Morell endorsed Clinton in the NYT. A few days later he said this on Charlie Rose–
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
Now of course liberals love the CIA. I think Trump will be a disaster on several fronts, but some of his opponents are playing their own games. Personally with people like Morell I suspect bitterness over the fact that we didn’t do more in Syria. We did too damn much.
Trump sticking to his Muslim ban and registry. That’s a particular form of demagoguery that doesn’t work without 9/11. Their plan is working. The foundations of liberal society are weakening.
Trump sticking to his Muslim ban and registry. That’s a particular form of demagoguery that doesn’t work without 9/11. Their plan is working. The foundations of liberal society are weakening.
Trump sticking to his Muslim ban and registry. That’s a particular form of demagoguery that doesn’t work without 9/11. Their plan is working. The foundations of liberal society are weakening.
Larison, as usual, says it best —
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-interventionists-double-standards/
And one last point. I have made it before, but this will be sort of a summary as I intend to stay off the Internet for the rest of the day. On the question of cynicism, we would all be a lot better off if people approached issues on a case by case basis and focused less on the parties. It is too late now, but everything is poisoned by the way we talk or don’t talk about issues because of whether it would help or hurt a given political party. From my pov the Democrats are going to come out ahead on most issues anyway. But this is what contributes to cynicism. Anyone who pays attention tforeign policy issues knows perfectly well that political pressures at home often determine who or what we support and we ought to talk about this. We aren’t supporting Israel with billions of dollars per year because it is in our interest to prop up their stupid oppression of Palestinians. And Saudi money flows freely in DC, which likely has a lot to do with what they get away with.
Larison, as usual, says it best —
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-interventionists-double-standards/
And one last point. I have made it before, but this will be sort of a summary as I intend to stay off the Internet for the rest of the day. On the question of cynicism, we would all be a lot better off if people approached issues on a case by case basis and focused less on the parties. It is too late now, but everything is poisoned by the way we talk or don’t talk about issues because of whether it would help or hurt a given political party. From my pov the Democrats are going to come out ahead on most issues anyway. But this is what contributes to cynicism. Anyone who pays attention tforeign policy issues knows perfectly well that political pressures at home often determine who or what we support and we ought to talk about this. We aren’t supporting Israel with billions of dollars per year because it is in our interest to prop up their stupid oppression of Palestinians. And Saudi money flows freely in DC, which likely has a lot to do with what they get away with.
Larison, as usual, says it best —
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-interventionists-double-standards/
And one last point. I have made it before, but this will be sort of a summary as I intend to stay off the Internet for the rest of the day. On the question of cynicism, we would all be a lot better off if people approached issues on a case by case basis and focused less on the parties. It is too late now, but everything is poisoned by the way we talk or don’t talk about issues because of whether it would help or hurt a given political party. From my pov the Democrats are going to come out ahead on most issues anyway. But this is what contributes to cynicism. Anyone who pays attention tforeign policy issues knows perfectly well that political pressures at home often determine who or what we support and we ought to talk about this. We aren’t supporting Israel with billions of dollars per year because it is in our interest to prop up their stupid oppression of Palestinians. And Saudi money flows freely in DC, which likely has a lot to do with what they get away with.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned.
Most Trump supporters would be happy to see our military or CIA operatives or whoever go kill some brown people in the ME. I don’t think that’s the cynicism sapient was referring to, and it’s not particularly widespread among the general public. The cynicism you’re describing is mostly reserved for the so-called chattering classes and intelligentsia. Joe the Plumber couldn’t give a sh1t.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned.
Most Trump supporters would be happy to see our military or CIA operatives or whoever go kill some brown people in the ME. I don’t think that’s the cynicism sapient was referring to, and it’s not particularly widespread among the general public. The cynicism you’re describing is mostly reserved for the so-called chattering classes and intelligentsia. Joe the Plumber couldn’t give a sh1t.
Cynicism about American foreign policy under both parties was earned.
Most Trump supporters would be happy to see our military or CIA operatives or whoever go kill some brown people in the ME. I don’t think that’s the cynicism sapient was referring to, and it’s not particularly widespread among the general public. The cynicism you’re describing is mostly reserved for the so-called chattering classes and intelligentsia. Joe the Plumber couldn’t give a sh1t.
Now of course liberals love the CIA.
As I saw from someone on twitter the other day, Trump and his fellow travelers have given CIA-bashing a bad name!
Morell is a prime example of what is wrong with our intelligence apparatus, “I want to kill Russians and Iranians and make sure they know we did it while hiding it from the rest of the world and American people.” Jeebus, WTF?
Now of course liberals love the CIA.
As I saw from someone on twitter the other day, Trump and his fellow travelers have given CIA-bashing a bad name!
Morell is a prime example of what is wrong with our intelligence apparatus, “I want to kill Russians and Iranians and make sure they know we did it while hiding it from the rest of the world and American people.” Jeebus, WTF?
Now of course liberals love the CIA.
As I saw from someone on twitter the other day, Trump and his fellow travelers have given CIA-bashing a bad name!
Morell is a prime example of what is wrong with our intelligence apparatus, “I want to kill Russians and Iranians and make sure they know we did it while hiding it from the rest of the world and American people.” Jeebus, WTF?
A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people.
That’s pretty much the ideal I grew up with. That, and a general sense that folks tried to work together to solve problems.
I am probably as unhappy with the continuation of things that I do not agree with under Obama, but I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
I’m not sure where we go from here as a nation. Because I’m not sure we are really one nation. We, and really the whole world, have a lot invested in the continuation of the US as a coherent and effective political entity, but I really do feel like that’s kind of a fiction at this point.
I can’t think of one thing that either Trump or the (R)’s generally want that I support or think is remotely a good idea. I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation with conservative friends or family members and find, not just a point of agreement, but basic points of common reference.
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
I’m not optimistic about the nation, and I’m not sure how the world as a whole is going to fare going forward. I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
As far as 9/11 goes, we lost our fucking minds on that day and never really found them again.
A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people.
That’s pretty much the ideal I grew up with. That, and a general sense that folks tried to work together to solve problems.
I am probably as unhappy with the continuation of things that I do not agree with under Obama, but I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
I’m not sure where we go from here as a nation. Because I’m not sure we are really one nation. We, and really the whole world, have a lot invested in the continuation of the US as a coherent and effective political entity, but I really do feel like that’s kind of a fiction at this point.
I can’t think of one thing that either Trump or the (R)’s generally want that I support or think is remotely a good idea. I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation with conservative friends or family members and find, not just a point of agreement, but basic points of common reference.
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
I’m not optimistic about the nation, and I’m not sure how the world as a whole is going to fare going forward. I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
As far as 9/11 goes, we lost our fucking minds on that day and never really found them again.
A tolerant society of immigrants who were free to do as they pleased as long as they made a modest contribution to the common good, and did no harm to other people.
That’s pretty much the ideal I grew up with. That, and a general sense that folks tried to work together to solve problems.
I am probably as unhappy with the continuation of things that I do not agree with under Obama, but I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
I’m not sure where we go from here as a nation. Because I’m not sure we are really one nation. We, and really the whole world, have a lot invested in the continuation of the US as a coherent and effective political entity, but I really do feel like that’s kind of a fiction at this point.
I can’t think of one thing that either Trump or the (R)’s generally want that I support or think is remotely a good idea. I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation with conservative friends or family members and find, not just a point of agreement, but basic points of common reference.
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
I’m not optimistic about the nation, and I’m not sure how the world as a whole is going to fare going forward. I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
As far as 9/11 goes, we lost our fucking minds on that day and never really found them again.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
This. And this:
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
And as far as this goes:
I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
we seem to be pretty much fucked up too, what with Brexit and all, and what looks like the increasingly shaky EU. Not to mention the rise of the right in Austria (just because they lost this time, I don’t expect they’re going away), Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I don’t remember ever being so depressed about politics and the future.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
This. And this:
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
And as far as this goes:
I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
we seem to be pretty much fucked up too, what with Brexit and all, and what looks like the increasingly shaky EU. Not to mention the rise of the right in Austria (just because they lost this time, I don’t expect they’re going away), Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I don’t remember ever being so depressed about politics and the future.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
This. And this:
And seriously, Trump is just an insult, to the American people, to the world, and to our history and legacy as a nation. He encapsulates every worst instinct and inclination. He is going to fuck things the hell up, and the (R)’s and probably a few (D)’s are going to cheer him on out of their own sheer cupidity.
And as far as this goes:
I’m hoping somebody else will pick up the traditions we have tried to champion and carry them forward, because I don’t see us doing it any time soon, if ever again.
we seem to be pretty much fucked up too, what with Brexit and all, and what looks like the increasingly shaky EU. Not to mention the rise of the right in Austria (just because they lost this time, I don’t expect they’re going away), Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I don’t remember ever being so depressed about politics and the future.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
Over the years, I have noticed that a fairly large number of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, reflexively make the perfect the enemy of the good. That is, anything less than the ideal is every bit as bad as the opposite of the ideal.
Persisting in demanding “all or nothing” is a great way to assure that you get nothing. With great regularity and consistency.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
Over the years, I have noticed that a fairly large number of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, reflexively make the perfect the enemy of the good. That is, anything less than the ideal is every bit as bad as the opposite of the ideal.
Persisting in demanding “all or nothing” is a great way to assure that you get nothing. With great regularity and consistency.
I do not share Donald’s apparent sense that one party is just as bad as the other. To me, equating the two is itself an exercise in political and social cynicism.
Over the years, I have noticed that a fairly large number of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, reflexively make the perfect the enemy of the good. That is, anything less than the ideal is every bit as bad as the opposite of the ideal.
Persisting in demanding “all or nothing” is a great way to assure that you get nothing. With great regularity and consistency.
OTOH, if the group that’s telling you you need to be willing to make compromises and move to their position never seems to make any compromises of their own, and keeps telling you that it’s making things better for everyone while holding up its improved lot as proof, it becomes reasonable to question if we’re talking about the perfect being the enemy of the good. When you spend decades lecturing large swathes of the electorate to stop supporting self-interested politicians who don’t your economic interests at heart (“What’s the matter with Kansas?!?”), it behooves you to make sure that you’re clearly and unequivocally promoting their interests if you want them to support you instead of latching onto “anti-establishment” demagogues or sitting on their hands instead of voting for either of the self-interested candidates who don’t have their economic interests at heart.
The degree to which the Democrat’s status quo represents “the good” depends an awful lot on where you’re sitting relative to its center of mass. And if you’re being browbeaten and called an unpatriotic traitor for dissenting against human rights abuse, undemocratic policies, and toxic economic policies… it looks an awful lot more like you’re trying to make your good vision of your political engagement (having some say in governance and having the government be somewhat responsive to your wants and needs) the enemy of the NRL’s perfect vision of your engagement (you sitting down, shutting up, and clapping/cheering/voting precisely and only as and when instructed to, regardless of what policies the NRLs decide are best for everyone).
OTOH, if the group that’s telling you you need to be willing to make compromises and move to their position never seems to make any compromises of their own, and keeps telling you that it’s making things better for everyone while holding up its improved lot as proof, it becomes reasonable to question if we’re talking about the perfect being the enemy of the good. When you spend decades lecturing large swathes of the electorate to stop supporting self-interested politicians who don’t your economic interests at heart (“What’s the matter with Kansas?!?”), it behooves you to make sure that you’re clearly and unequivocally promoting their interests if you want them to support you instead of latching onto “anti-establishment” demagogues or sitting on their hands instead of voting for either of the self-interested candidates who don’t have their economic interests at heart.
The degree to which the Democrat’s status quo represents “the good” depends an awful lot on where you’re sitting relative to its center of mass. And if you’re being browbeaten and called an unpatriotic traitor for dissenting against human rights abuse, undemocratic policies, and toxic economic policies… it looks an awful lot more like you’re trying to make your good vision of your political engagement (having some say in governance and having the government be somewhat responsive to your wants and needs) the enemy of the NRL’s perfect vision of your engagement (you sitting down, shutting up, and clapping/cheering/voting precisely and only as and when instructed to, regardless of what policies the NRLs decide are best for everyone).
OTOH, if the group that’s telling you you need to be willing to make compromises and move to their position never seems to make any compromises of their own, and keeps telling you that it’s making things better for everyone while holding up its improved lot as proof, it becomes reasonable to question if we’re talking about the perfect being the enemy of the good. When you spend decades lecturing large swathes of the electorate to stop supporting self-interested politicians who don’t your economic interests at heart (“What’s the matter with Kansas?!?”), it behooves you to make sure that you’re clearly and unequivocally promoting their interests if you want them to support you instead of latching onto “anti-establishment” demagogues or sitting on their hands instead of voting for either of the self-interested candidates who don’t have their economic interests at heart.
The degree to which the Democrat’s status quo represents “the good” depends an awful lot on where you’re sitting relative to its center of mass. And if you’re being browbeaten and called an unpatriotic traitor for dissenting against human rights abuse, undemocratic policies, and toxic economic policies… it looks an awful lot more like you’re trying to make your good vision of your political engagement (having some say in governance and having the government be somewhat responsive to your wants and needs) the enemy of the NRL’s perfect vision of your engagement (you sitting down, shutting up, and clapping/cheering/voting precisely and only as and when instructed to, regardless of what policies the NRLs decide are best for everyone).
Not that I want to engage with you much, NV, because I think you’re a lost cause, but responding more to your link, we see this:
The modern economy privileges the well-educated and highly-skilled, while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.
Okay, yes as to the first part. The modern economy does [and should, and always have, and unless Trump’s fake facts get in the way, always should] privilege the well educated and highly skilled. That is in income. Because being highly educated and highly skilled requires an investment, and energy, and self-discipline. (Where we have gone wrong recently is that it also requires too much money.)
But as to this: “while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.” Ummm, no. Nobody has an excuse to denigrate people. And, in fact, the Democrats (even Hillary people, yo!) don’t denigrate people who haven’t been privileged. They are trying to find ways to create a fairer system. Did you not understand the policy positions that the Clinton campaign put forward?
So, basically, as per usual, you are full of b.s., NV, and so is that article. by the way, education is valuable. Skills are valuable. Both require time, investment of money, commitment, and discipline. It shouldn’t be just for the rich. We should also keep in mind that not everyone is capable of spending time, spending money, having commitment, or discipline. They need to have options too, no question. The idea that any Democrat ignored any of these people is false.
No more responding to you, and your freaking lies.
Not that I want to engage with you much, NV, because I think you’re a lost cause, but responding more to your link, we see this:
The modern economy privileges the well-educated and highly-skilled, while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.
Okay, yes as to the first part. The modern economy does [and should, and always have, and unless Trump’s fake facts get in the way, always should] privilege the well educated and highly skilled. That is in income. Because being highly educated and highly skilled requires an investment, and energy, and self-discipline. (Where we have gone wrong recently is that it also requires too much money.)
But as to this: “while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.” Ummm, no. Nobody has an excuse to denigrate people. And, in fact, the Democrats (even Hillary people, yo!) don’t denigrate people who haven’t been privileged. They are trying to find ways to create a fairer system. Did you not understand the policy positions that the Clinton campaign put forward?
So, basically, as per usual, you are full of b.s., NV, and so is that article. by the way, education is valuable. Skills are valuable. Both require time, investment of money, commitment, and discipline. It shouldn’t be just for the rich. We should also keep in mind that not everyone is capable of spending time, spending money, having commitment, or discipline. They need to have options too, no question. The idea that any Democrat ignored any of these people is false.
No more responding to you, and your freaking lies.
Not that I want to engage with you much, NV, because I think you’re a lost cause, but responding more to your link, we see this:
The modern economy privileges the well-educated and highly-skilled, while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.
Okay, yes as to the first part. The modern economy does [and should, and always have, and unless Trump’s fake facts get in the way, always should] privilege the well educated and highly skilled. That is in income. Because being highly educated and highly skilled requires an investment, and energy, and self-discipline. (Where we have gone wrong recently is that it also requires too much money.)
But as to this: “while giving them an excuse to denigrate the people at the bottom (both white and nonwhite) as lazy, untalented, uneducated, and unsophisticated.” Ummm, no. Nobody has an excuse to denigrate people. And, in fact, the Democrats (even Hillary people, yo!) don’t denigrate people who haven’t been privileged. They are trying to find ways to create a fairer system. Did you not understand the policy positions that the Clinton campaign put forward?
So, basically, as per usual, you are full of b.s., NV, and so is that article. by the way, education is valuable. Skills are valuable. Both require time, investment of money, commitment, and discipline. It shouldn’t be just for the rich. We should also keep in mind that not everyone is capable of spending time, spending money, having commitment, or discipline. They need to have options too, no question. The idea that any Democrat ignored any of these people is false.
No more responding to you, and your freaking lies.
what is the NRL?
what is the NRL?
what is the NRL?
The Aramaic acronym for the The People’s Front of Judea
The Aramaic acronym for the The People’s Front of Judea
The Aramaic acronym for the The People’s Front of Judea
russell: Nice, Respectable Liberal. As opposed to the DFHs.
sapient: you’re one to talk. Go look at your 2:20 and see how much of it is devoted to decrying the perfidy of the near enemy who treacherously confuse supporting and advocating democratic values with supporting people who claim to support democratic values regardless of what they actually do. Unquestioning lockstep loyalty to a party is not the same as patriotism, and certainly not to support of liberal democratic principles. Your careful formulation of how centerist Democrats institute policies that benefit the economy “at large” was entirely the point and quite telling, not least because of how the economy as a whole is measured is a subjective matter determined by self-interested parties keen on ensuring that what’s good for them and theirs is conflated with the common good.
Just because an artificial one-dimensional political spectrum lets someone place their values at the center doesn’t make them less ideological or extremist than those they place to their left and right. Politics should properly be described as a 2-plus dimensional space with no defined origin, but again, the people popularizing the common formulations have no interest in being objective…
russell: Nice, Respectable Liberal. As opposed to the DFHs.
sapient: you’re one to talk. Go look at your 2:20 and see how much of it is devoted to decrying the perfidy of the near enemy who treacherously confuse supporting and advocating democratic values with supporting people who claim to support democratic values regardless of what they actually do. Unquestioning lockstep loyalty to a party is not the same as patriotism, and certainly not to support of liberal democratic principles. Your careful formulation of how centerist Democrats institute policies that benefit the economy “at large” was entirely the point and quite telling, not least because of how the economy as a whole is measured is a subjective matter determined by self-interested parties keen on ensuring that what’s good for them and theirs is conflated with the common good.
Just because an artificial one-dimensional political spectrum lets someone place their values at the center doesn’t make them less ideological or extremist than those they place to their left and right. Politics should properly be described as a 2-plus dimensional space with no defined origin, but again, the people popularizing the common formulations have no interest in being objective…
russell: Nice, Respectable Liberal. As opposed to the DFHs.
sapient: you’re one to talk. Go look at your 2:20 and see how much of it is devoted to decrying the perfidy of the near enemy who treacherously confuse supporting and advocating democratic values with supporting people who claim to support democratic values regardless of what they actually do. Unquestioning lockstep loyalty to a party is not the same as patriotism, and certainly not to support of liberal democratic principles. Your careful formulation of how centerist Democrats institute policies that benefit the economy “at large” was entirely the point and quite telling, not least because of how the economy as a whole is measured is a subjective matter determined by self-interested parties keen on ensuring that what’s good for them and theirs is conflated with the common good.
Just because an artificial one-dimensional political spectrum lets someone place their values at the center doesn’t make them less ideological or extremist than those they place to their left and right. Politics should properly be described as a 2-plus dimensional space with no defined origin, but again, the people popularizing the common formulations have no interest in being objective…
Ugh: you’re essentially right as well.
Ugh: you’re essentially right as well.
Ugh: you’re essentially right as well.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other and the dismissal of criticism of the Democrats on that ground or the ” perfect is the enemy of the good” is precisely the problem I am talking about. We don’t talk about issues– we talk about issues with regards to how it will help or hurt a party. Everything is filtered through that. It guarantees that when the Democrats do something amazingly stupid or even immoral, the issue will be largely ignored by Democrats or worse, the policy will be justified. Again,, I voted for Clinton, but I am not going to preface every comment with that statement. I think the Democrats are better– I even freaking said that on most issues the Democrats would come out ahead if we focused on issues and it makes no difference because I am clearly disgusted with the Democrats.
The policy in Yemen is not “good” by any definition whatsoever. It is a policy that has reduced hundreds of thousands of children to the brink of death by starvation. It is in fact morally depraved, an obscenity. We as a society look the other way and the reason is because of the political filter. Evidently as a society this is where we are at. No issue is worth taking seriously unless it clearly helps or hurts one of the two parties. On Syria, our policy has been irresponsible and the main criticism from Serious People has been that we should have done even more intervening than we did. In this context, talking about how the perfect is the enemy of the good illustrates the way everything is tribal now.
Political cynicism is exactly how I would describe mainstream American liberalism. And yes, Republicans are worse. The two forms of cynicism feed off each other and you don’t have to say they are both equally bad to think this.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other and the dismissal of criticism of the Democrats on that ground or the ” perfect is the enemy of the good” is precisely the problem I am talking about. We don’t talk about issues– we talk about issues with regards to how it will help or hurt a party. Everything is filtered through that. It guarantees that when the Democrats do something amazingly stupid or even immoral, the issue will be largely ignored by Democrats or worse, the policy will be justified. Again,, I voted for Clinton, but I am not going to preface every comment with that statement. I think the Democrats are better– I even freaking said that on most issues the Democrats would come out ahead if we focused on issues and it makes no difference because I am clearly disgusted with the Democrats.
The policy in Yemen is not “good” by any definition whatsoever. It is a policy that has reduced hundreds of thousands of children to the brink of death by starvation. It is in fact morally depraved, an obscenity. We as a society look the other way and the reason is because of the political filter. Evidently as a society this is where we are at. No issue is worth taking seriously unless it clearly helps or hurts one of the two parties. On Syria, our policy has been irresponsible and the main criticism from Serious People has been that we should have done even more intervening than we did. In this context, talking about how the perfect is the enemy of the good illustrates the way everything is tribal now.
Political cynicism is exactly how I would describe mainstream American liberalism. And yes, Republicans are worse. The two forms of cynicism feed off each other and you don’t have to say they are both equally bad to think this.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other and the dismissal of criticism of the Democrats on that ground or the ” perfect is the enemy of the good” is precisely the problem I am talking about. We don’t talk about issues– we talk about issues with regards to how it will help or hurt a party. Everything is filtered through that. It guarantees that when the Democrats do something amazingly stupid or even immoral, the issue will be largely ignored by Democrats or worse, the policy will be justified. Again,, I voted for Clinton, but I am not going to preface every comment with that statement. I think the Democrats are better– I even freaking said that on most issues the Democrats would come out ahead if we focused on issues and it makes no difference because I am clearly disgusted with the Democrats.
The policy in Yemen is not “good” by any definition whatsoever. It is a policy that has reduced hundreds of thousands of children to the brink of death by starvation. It is in fact morally depraved, an obscenity. We as a society look the other way and the reason is because of the political filter. Evidently as a society this is where we are at. No issue is worth taking seriously unless it clearly helps or hurts one of the two parties. On Syria, our policy has been irresponsible and the main criticism from Serious People has been that we should have done even more intervening than we did. In this context, talking about how the perfect is the enemy of the good illustrates the way everything is tribal now.
Political cynicism is exactly how I would describe mainstream American liberalism. And yes, Republicans are worse. The two forms of cynicism feed off each other and you don’t have to say they are both equally bad to think this.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other
Donald, you may not think that. But allow me to observe that, from the outside, that’s exactly what your comments communicate. At least to me.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other
Donald, you may not think that. But allow me to observe that, from the outside, that’s exactly what your comments communicate. At least to me.
I don’t think one party is just as bad as the other
Donald, you may not think that. But allow me to observe that, from the outside, that’s exactly what your comments communicate. At least to me.
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
The tone is angry because the Democrats do terrible things, like the support for Yemen, and then turn around and condemn Trump because he sucks up to Putin while the Russians bomb Syria. On this particular issue, yes, the Democrats might be as bad. Actually, though, I think the Republicans are worse. The Democrats in the Senate were more opposed to Obama on this issue than the Republicans. However, most liberal pundits online and in newspapers almost completely ignore Yemen. The reason is obvious. Everything is partisan.
I don’t write rants about the Republicans who support Obama’s policies in Yemen because the majority of self described conservatives with some honorable exceptions are supportive of that kind of militarism and everyone knows it. Double standards on human rights are the norm. Commentary Magazine used to use the term ” moral equivalence” to dismiss anyone who criticized, say, US support for death squads in Central America. I am happy to know there are conservatives like a Larison and Bacevich who do not fall into this category, but they have little power amongst Republicans. A few ( not Larison and probably not Bacevich) have what I consider a delusional hope that Trump will be different, but I think he will be as bad or worse.
Democrats on the other hand purport to be different and want the votes and support of lefties who are antiwar and against US support for massive human rights violators. But in practice they often do terrible things themselves. So when the side I vote for does terrible things I get a little acerbic. The thing is, I think every decent human being should feel the same way when it comes to war crimes, no matter which party is responsible. You can feel this way and also feel a sick sense of dread about what Trump might do. I also feel deeply uneasy about some of Trump’s opponents. People like McCain, Graham, and Morell are not sensible folk with good ideas just because they oppose Trump,
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
The tone is angry because the Democrats do terrible things, like the support for Yemen, and then turn around and condemn Trump because he sucks up to Putin while the Russians bomb Syria. On this particular issue, yes, the Democrats might be as bad. Actually, though, I think the Republicans are worse. The Democrats in the Senate were more opposed to Obama on this issue than the Republicans. However, most liberal pundits online and in newspapers almost completely ignore Yemen. The reason is obvious. Everything is partisan.
I don’t write rants about the Republicans who support Obama’s policies in Yemen because the majority of self described conservatives with some honorable exceptions are supportive of that kind of militarism and everyone knows it. Double standards on human rights are the norm. Commentary Magazine used to use the term ” moral equivalence” to dismiss anyone who criticized, say, US support for death squads in Central America. I am happy to know there are conservatives like a Larison and Bacevich who do not fall into this category, but they have little power amongst Republicans. A few ( not Larison and probably not Bacevich) have what I consider a delusional hope that Trump will be different, but I think he will be as bad or worse.
Democrats on the other hand purport to be different and want the votes and support of lefties who are antiwar and against US support for massive human rights violators. But in practice they often do terrible things themselves. So when the side I vote for does terrible things I get a little acerbic. The thing is, I think every decent human being should feel the same way when it comes to war crimes, no matter which party is responsible. You can feel this way and also feel a sick sense of dread about what Trump might do. I also feel deeply uneasy about some of Trump’s opponents. People like McCain, Graham, and Morell are not sensible folk with good ideas just because they oppose Trump,
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
The tone is angry because the Democrats do terrible things, like the support for Yemen, and then turn around and condemn Trump because he sucks up to Putin while the Russians bomb Syria. On this particular issue, yes, the Democrats might be as bad. Actually, though, I think the Republicans are worse. The Democrats in the Senate were more opposed to Obama on this issue than the Republicans. However, most liberal pundits online and in newspapers almost completely ignore Yemen. The reason is obvious. Everything is partisan.
I don’t write rants about the Republicans who support Obama’s policies in Yemen because the majority of self described conservatives with some honorable exceptions are supportive of that kind of militarism and everyone knows it. Double standards on human rights are the norm. Commentary Magazine used to use the term ” moral equivalence” to dismiss anyone who criticized, say, US support for death squads in Central America. I am happy to know there are conservatives like a Larison and Bacevich who do not fall into this category, but they have little power amongst Republicans. A few ( not Larison and probably not Bacevich) have what I consider a delusional hope that Trump will be different, but I think he will be as bad or worse.
Democrats on the other hand purport to be different and want the votes and support of lefties who are antiwar and against US support for massive human rights violators. But in practice they often do terrible things themselves. So when the side I vote for does terrible things I get a little acerbic. The thing is, I think every decent human being should feel the same way when it comes to war crimes, no matter which party is responsible. You can feel this way and also feel a sick sense of dread about what Trump might do. I also feel deeply uneasy about some of Trump’s opponents. People like McCain, Graham, and Morell are not sensible folk with good ideas just because they oppose Trump,
Beyond all of the very-true points DJ makes above, in the more general sense your response is a trap, wj. It’s not reasonable to demand that any criticism of your party devote equal time to attacking the other party IOT reassure you and pre-emptively deflect content-free knee-jerk NABA deflections. Given that some of the same people who have in the past decried a lack of equal time spent criticizing both sides are currently in Seb’s thread rankling at the idea of “coddling” Republican sensibilities when talking to them, it’s hard to take this particular rhetorical ploy as anything more than intolerance of criticism of one tribe.
It’s also worth pointing out that different tones get adopted in different contexts. I spent a frustrating amount of time in the last year unraveling and disputing Republican propaganda – much of it specifically anti-Clinton – on social media, but you sure as hell wouldn’t know that from my posts here… because it was not relevant to what was being discussed. If we’re talking about liberal Democrat malfeasance, Republican malfeasance is a red herring, even if the D is NABA the R.
Beyond all of the very-true points DJ makes above, in the more general sense your response is a trap, wj. It’s not reasonable to demand that any criticism of your party devote equal time to attacking the other party IOT reassure you and pre-emptively deflect content-free knee-jerk NABA deflections. Given that some of the same people who have in the past decried a lack of equal time spent criticizing both sides are currently in Seb’s thread rankling at the idea of “coddling” Republican sensibilities when talking to them, it’s hard to take this particular rhetorical ploy as anything more than intolerance of criticism of one tribe.
It’s also worth pointing out that different tones get adopted in different contexts. I spent a frustrating amount of time in the last year unraveling and disputing Republican propaganda – much of it specifically anti-Clinton – on social media, but you sure as hell wouldn’t know that from my posts here… because it was not relevant to what was being discussed. If we’re talking about liberal Democrat malfeasance, Republican malfeasance is a red herring, even if the D is NABA the R.
Beyond all of the very-true points DJ makes above, in the more general sense your response is a trap, wj. It’s not reasonable to demand that any criticism of your party devote equal time to attacking the other party IOT reassure you and pre-emptively deflect content-free knee-jerk NABA deflections. Given that some of the same people who have in the past decried a lack of equal time spent criticizing both sides are currently in Seb’s thread rankling at the idea of “coddling” Republican sensibilities when talking to them, it’s hard to take this particular rhetorical ploy as anything more than intolerance of criticism of one tribe.
It’s also worth pointing out that different tones get adopted in different contexts. I spent a frustrating amount of time in the last year unraveling and disputing Republican propaganda – much of it specifically anti-Clinton – on social media, but you sure as hell wouldn’t know that from my posts here… because it was not relevant to what was being discussed. If we’re talking about liberal Democrat malfeasance, Republican malfeasance is a red herring, even if the D is NABA the R.
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. Tone matters — at least if you are trying to convince someone to change what they are doing, rather than just venting.
It is possible to agree with, as I do, that
– Yemen is a disaster,
– the Saudi’s are committing war crimes there,
– they are also doing despicable things that don’t rise, quite, to the level of war crimes, and
– we should not be supporting them.
All that and still respond to one of your posts with “Oh God, Donald is ranting about Yemen again.” Which, I submit, is not an effective way to get people to support you.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be angry. I’m not saying that you should ignore the misdeeds of your party (assuming that you consider the Democrats to be that). And I’m not saying, contra NV, that you have to denounce the Republicans every time you denounce the Democrats. All I am saying is, if you want to change minds, and behavior, repeated denunciations are not an effective approach.
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. Tone matters — at least if you are trying to convince someone to change what they are doing, rather than just venting.
It is possible to agree with, as I do, that
– Yemen is a disaster,
– the Saudi’s are committing war crimes there,
– they are also doing despicable things that don’t rise, quite, to the level of war crimes, and
– we should not be supporting them.
All that and still respond to one of your posts with “Oh God, Donald is ranting about Yemen again.” Which, I submit, is not an effective way to get people to support you.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be angry. I’m not saying that you should ignore the misdeeds of your party (assuming that you consider the Democrats to be that). And I’m not saying, contra NV, that you have to denounce the Republicans every time you denounce the Democrats. All I am saying is, if you want to change minds, and behavior, repeated denunciations are not an effective approach.
That’s the problem, Wj. You don’t read what I say, you listen to the tone and ignore the content. That’s the point.
Yes, that’s exactly the point. Tone matters — at least if you are trying to convince someone to change what they are doing, rather than just venting.
It is possible to agree with, as I do, that
– Yemen is a disaster,
– the Saudi’s are committing war crimes there,
– they are also doing despicable things that don’t rise, quite, to the level of war crimes, and
– we should not be supporting them.
All that and still respond to one of your posts with “Oh God, Donald is ranting about Yemen again.” Which, I submit, is not an effective way to get people to support you.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t be angry. I’m not saying that you should ignore the misdeeds of your party (assuming that you consider the Democrats to be that). And I’m not saying, contra NV, that you have to denounce the Republicans every time you denounce the Democrats. All I am saying is, if you want to change minds, and behavior, repeated denunciations are not an effective approach.
I have thought of that Wj, but here is the thing– everyone here is smart and presumably most liberal pundits are smart and educated and yet Yemen is rather persistently ignored and hardly anyone even knows that there is some obnoxious ranter who brings up the fact that we are complicit in a terrible crime a few times a week on some little known political blog. So the problem on the larger scale isn’t me. The problem is with American liberalism, the self – described reality based community, which, just like Republicans, doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things. This is not new, not surprising, and just as with Republicans there are no easy ways to break through the barrier. The backfire effect kicks in. Also, if hardly anyone except a handful of obsessives gets angry about it, how important can it be?
When Bush was President and we were condemning torture there probably were good ways and bad ways to get through to Bush supporters on why it was wrong. But the problem there was with the support for torture. It turned out some people supported torture no matter what, while others could be persuaded to look past their tribal affiliations. Right wingers deny global warming and according to people who study these things we need to come up with a way to appeal to conservatives on that issue which doesn’t threaten their worldview. That wasn’t a problem years ago, but it is now. Skepticism about global warming has become a tribal marker.
So I guess people need to come up with a way to persuade Democrats to be upset over our support for the Saudis as they cause a humanitarian catastrophe, even as Democrats elsewhere claim to be upset by Trump’s love affair with Russia while Russia bombs Syria. The best I can do here is to point out that the majority of Senate Democrats oppose arming he Saudis.
I have wondered about this sort of thing for years. Chomsky used to write that the problem was most Americans were kept ignorant by the MSM regarding what we do. On East Timor that made sense. Most Americans had never even heard of it. But in the internet age news both true and false has escaped the control of the press. People pretty much believe what they want. The backfire effect is king.
I have thought of that Wj, but here is the thing– everyone here is smart and presumably most liberal pundits are smart and educated and yet Yemen is rather persistently ignored and hardly anyone even knows that there is some obnoxious ranter who brings up the fact that we are complicit in a terrible crime a few times a week on some little known political blog. So the problem on the larger scale isn’t me. The problem is with American liberalism, the self – described reality based community, which, just like Republicans, doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things. This is not new, not surprising, and just as with Republicans there are no easy ways to break through the barrier. The backfire effect kicks in. Also, if hardly anyone except a handful of obsessives gets angry about it, how important can it be?
When Bush was President and we were condemning torture there probably were good ways and bad ways to get through to Bush supporters on why it was wrong. But the problem there was with the support for torture. It turned out some people supported torture no matter what, while others could be persuaded to look past their tribal affiliations. Right wingers deny global warming and according to people who study these things we need to come up with a way to appeal to conservatives on that issue which doesn’t threaten their worldview. That wasn’t a problem years ago, but it is now. Skepticism about global warming has become a tribal marker.
So I guess people need to come up with a way to persuade Democrats to be upset over our support for the Saudis as they cause a humanitarian catastrophe, even as Democrats elsewhere claim to be upset by Trump’s love affair with Russia while Russia bombs Syria. The best I can do here is to point out that the majority of Senate Democrats oppose arming he Saudis.
I have wondered about this sort of thing for years. Chomsky used to write that the problem was most Americans were kept ignorant by the MSM regarding what we do. On East Timor that made sense. Most Americans had never even heard of it. But in the internet age news both true and false has escaped the control of the press. People pretty much believe what they want. The backfire effect is king.
I have thought of that Wj, but here is the thing– everyone here is smart and presumably most liberal pundits are smart and educated and yet Yemen is rather persistently ignored and hardly anyone even knows that there is some obnoxious ranter who brings up the fact that we are complicit in a terrible crime a few times a week on some little known political blog. So the problem on the larger scale isn’t me. The problem is with American liberalism, the self – described reality based community, which, just like Republicans, doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things. This is not new, not surprising, and just as with Republicans there are no easy ways to break through the barrier. The backfire effect kicks in. Also, if hardly anyone except a handful of obsessives gets angry about it, how important can it be?
When Bush was President and we were condemning torture there probably were good ways and bad ways to get through to Bush supporters on why it was wrong. But the problem there was with the support for torture. It turned out some people supported torture no matter what, while others could be persuaded to look past their tribal affiliations. Right wingers deny global warming and according to people who study these things we need to come up with a way to appeal to conservatives on that issue which doesn’t threaten their worldview. That wasn’t a problem years ago, but it is now. Skepticism about global warming has become a tribal marker.
So I guess people need to come up with a way to persuade Democrats to be upset over our support for the Saudis as they cause a humanitarian catastrophe, even as Democrats elsewhere claim to be upset by Trump’s love affair with Russia while Russia bombs Syria. The best I can do here is to point out that the majority of Senate Democrats oppose arming he Saudis.
I have wondered about this sort of thing for years. Chomsky used to write that the problem was most Americans were kept ignorant by the MSM regarding what we do. On East Timor that made sense. Most Americans had never even heard of it. But in the internet age news both true and false has escaped the control of the press. People pretty much believe what they want. The backfire effect is king.
doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things.
Why do we support the Saudis, and what would happen if we didn’t? These are the questions you must answer, and you don’t. There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions, and they have answers, which have apparently been compelling for decades. Why are they wrong?
doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things.
Why do we support the Saudis, and what would happen if we didn’t? These are the questions you must answer, and you don’t. There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions, and they have answers, which have apparently been compelling for decades. Why are they wrong?
doesn’t like to be told that it’s leaders are implicated in doing bad things.
Why do we support the Saudis, and what would happen if we didn’t? These are the questions you must answer, and you don’t. There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions, and they have answers, which have apparently been compelling for decades. Why are they wrong?
I think part of the issue is aside from who’s right about the wisdom or morality of a given policy. It’s also about the difference in how people arive at such judgements based on which side’s actions are in question.
I think part of the issue is aside from who’s right about the wisdom or morality of a given policy. It’s also about the difference in how people arive at such judgements based on which side’s actions are in question.
I think part of the issue is aside from who’s right about the wisdom or morality of a given policy. It’s also about the difference in how people arive at such judgements based on which side’s actions are in question.
In other words, we aren’t celestial philosophers figuring out what’s right. We have interests. We protect interests. But we’re not gangsters either (assuming life before Trump). We have treaties. We prefer protecting democracies and allies, even if our immediate “support” is with a country whose government is a theocracy or something else, but whose existence supports our allies. And also factoring in the possibility that if we didn’t support, say, the Saudis, the world wouldn’t change for the better. We’d just be able to pat ourselves on the back and proclaim purity.
I think there’s value in proclaiming purity, but it depends on what’s really at stake. My guess is that Obama didn’t make foreign policy decisions based on cowardice or greed or corruption or racism. He tried to figure out answers. Maybe he was wrong, but people who criticize him need to look at the elements of the problem before they say he used the wrong equation.
In other words, we aren’t celestial philosophers figuring out what’s right. We have interests. We protect interests. But we’re not gangsters either (assuming life before Trump). We have treaties. We prefer protecting democracies and allies, even if our immediate “support” is with a country whose government is a theocracy or something else, but whose existence supports our allies. And also factoring in the possibility that if we didn’t support, say, the Saudis, the world wouldn’t change for the better. We’d just be able to pat ourselves on the back and proclaim purity.
I think there’s value in proclaiming purity, but it depends on what’s really at stake. My guess is that Obama didn’t make foreign policy decisions based on cowardice or greed or corruption or racism. He tried to figure out answers. Maybe he was wrong, but people who criticize him need to look at the elements of the problem before they say he used the wrong equation.
In other words, we aren’t celestial philosophers figuring out what’s right. We have interests. We protect interests. But we’re not gangsters either (assuming life before Trump). We have treaties. We prefer protecting democracies and allies, even if our immediate “support” is with a country whose government is a theocracy or something else, but whose existence supports our allies. And also factoring in the possibility that if we didn’t support, say, the Saudis, the world wouldn’t change for the better. We’d just be able to pat ourselves on the back and proclaim purity.
I think there’s value in proclaiming purity, but it depends on what’s really at stake. My guess is that Obama didn’t make foreign policy decisions based on cowardice or greed or corruption or racism. He tried to figure out answers. Maybe he was wrong, but people who criticize him need to look at the elements of the problem before they say he used the wrong equation.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Guess it didn’t.
Guess it didn’t.
Guess it didn’t.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
People who mindlessly support him need to look at the elements of the problem as well. For example, even with good intent, inertia and entrenched interests are persuasive. Monied interests are persuasive. Access to supplies of global resources are persuasive.
Not militarily and fiscally supporting war crimes is not a matter of “proclaiming purity”, it’s a matter of not enabling war criminals. There are real and positive effects to changing our foreign policy, and they’re more concrete than the rhetorical ‘attaboy you seek to reduce them to.
You’re big on owning actions, and you think Obama has definitely been doing the right thing by providing concrete logistical support to Saudi airstrikes against civilians. So, does this mean you’re willing to own up to being knowingly supporting of war crimes simply because you speculate it may be important to do so? I.e., are you actually willing to assume that innocent civilians should die without knowing why, but accepting that it’s just and right simply because of who is making the decision to enable the killers?
You’ve said before I’m a lost cause. I’ll say the same of you. Virtue ethics are to my eye toxic, and you look to be quite thoroughly infected with them. I fall somewhere between deontology and consequentialism myself, but neither of those produce a moral structure consistent with virtue ethics except by happenstance. If I’m not mistaken in my appraisal of your moral frame of reference, there truly is very little reason for us to bother addressing one another on matters where the subject of right or wrong arise rather than practical considerations. Over the course of my life I’ve already wasted more time than I’m comfortable with arguing morality with people who possess a fundamentally different view of what the good is and how it’s to be judged; it really is futile if you don’t recognize why you’re not capable of reaching agreement.
People who mindlessly support him need to look at the elements of the problem as well. For example, even with good intent, inertia and entrenched interests are persuasive. Monied interests are persuasive. Access to supplies of global resources are persuasive.
Not militarily and fiscally supporting war crimes is not a matter of “proclaiming purity”, it’s a matter of not enabling war criminals. There are real and positive effects to changing our foreign policy, and they’re more concrete than the rhetorical ‘attaboy you seek to reduce them to.
You’re big on owning actions, and you think Obama has definitely been doing the right thing by providing concrete logistical support to Saudi airstrikes against civilians. So, does this mean you’re willing to own up to being knowingly supporting of war crimes simply because you speculate it may be important to do so? I.e., are you actually willing to assume that innocent civilians should die without knowing why, but accepting that it’s just and right simply because of who is making the decision to enable the killers?
You’ve said before I’m a lost cause. I’ll say the same of you. Virtue ethics are to my eye toxic, and you look to be quite thoroughly infected with them. I fall somewhere between deontology and consequentialism myself, but neither of those produce a moral structure consistent with virtue ethics except by happenstance. If I’m not mistaken in my appraisal of your moral frame of reference, there truly is very little reason for us to bother addressing one another on matters where the subject of right or wrong arise rather than practical considerations. Over the course of my life I’ve already wasted more time than I’m comfortable with arguing morality with people who possess a fundamentally different view of what the good is and how it’s to be judged; it really is futile if you don’t recognize why you’re not capable of reaching agreement.
People who mindlessly support him need to look at the elements of the problem as well. For example, even with good intent, inertia and entrenched interests are persuasive. Monied interests are persuasive. Access to supplies of global resources are persuasive.
Not militarily and fiscally supporting war crimes is not a matter of “proclaiming purity”, it’s a matter of not enabling war criminals. There are real and positive effects to changing our foreign policy, and they’re more concrete than the rhetorical ‘attaboy you seek to reduce them to.
You’re big on owning actions, and you think Obama has definitely been doing the right thing by providing concrete logistical support to Saudi airstrikes against civilians. So, does this mean you’re willing to own up to being knowingly supporting of war crimes simply because you speculate it may be important to do so? I.e., are you actually willing to assume that innocent civilians should die without knowing why, but accepting that it’s just and right simply because of who is making the decision to enable the killers?
You’ve said before I’m a lost cause. I’ll say the same of you. Virtue ethics are to my eye toxic, and you look to be quite thoroughly infected with them. I fall somewhere between deontology and consequentialism myself, but neither of those produce a moral structure consistent with virtue ethics except by happenstance. If I’m not mistaken in my appraisal of your moral frame of reference, there truly is very little reason for us to bother addressing one another on matters where the subject of right or wrong arise rather than practical considerations. Over the course of my life I’ve already wasted more time than I’m comfortable with arguing morality with people who possess a fundamentally different view of what the good is and how it’s to be judged; it really is futile if you don’t recognize why you’re not capable of reaching agreement.
NABA:
Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti?
North American Butterfly Association?
North American Broadcasters Association?
I had to wait for the end of the comment, for more context, before deciphering it. I will say, apart from anything else, NV’s comments are an education in acronyms.
NABA:
Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti?
North American Butterfly Association?
North American Broadcasters Association?
I had to wait for the end of the comment, for more context, before deciphering it. I will say, apart from anything else, NV’s comments are an education in acronyms.
NABA:
Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti?
North American Butterfly Association?
North American Broadcasters Association?
I had to wait for the end of the comment, for more context, before deciphering it. I will say, apart from anything else, NV’s comments are an education in acronyms.
There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions…
That might be true, but these is little evidence to show that they have a monopoly (or even an adequacy) of wisdom in these matters, or even that they agree amongst themselves, as, for instance, this story indicates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38415504
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions…
That might be true, but these is little evidence to show that they have a monopoly (or even an adequacy) of wisdom in these matters, or even that they agree amongst themselves, as, for instance, this story indicates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38415504
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
There are people in government whose jobs it is to study those questions…
That might be true, but these is little evidence to show that they have a monopoly (or even an adequacy) of wisdom in these matters, or even that they agree amongst themselves, as, for instance, this story indicates:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38415504
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
What was your formula for Syria, Nigel, when the rebels began their protests?
What was your formula for Syria, Nigel, when the rebels began their protests?
What was your formula for Syria, Nigel, when the rebels began their protests?
There were two options – don’t intervene, or do so effectively (admittedly not easy to define, but a strict no fly zone in the north might have saved Aleppo, and kept out Putin).
As it is, we did neither, but encouraged a rebellion and didn’t support it – shades of Bush senior in Iraq, but with far more disastrous results.
There were two options – don’t intervene, or do so effectively (admittedly not easy to define, but a strict no fly zone in the north might have saved Aleppo, and kept out Putin).
As it is, we did neither, but encouraged a rebellion and didn’t support it – shades of Bush senior in Iraq, but with far more disastrous results.
There were two options – don’t intervene, or do so effectively (admittedly not easy to define, but a strict no fly zone in the north might have saved Aleppo, and kept out Putin).
As it is, we did neither, but encouraged a rebellion and didn’t support it – shades of Bush senior in Iraq, but with far more disastrous results.
might have saved
Yes. Might have.
The other alternative, doing nothing, is always a good way to wash one’s hands of whatever atrocities ensue.
It’s not just a toss-up, and foreign policy expertise is useful, but it doesn’t solve everything. We’ll see, with Trump, how non-experts deal with the world, and whether they do it better.
might have saved
Yes. Might have.
The other alternative, doing nothing, is always a good way to wash one’s hands of whatever atrocities ensue.
It’s not just a toss-up, and foreign policy expertise is useful, but it doesn’t solve everything. We’ll see, with Trump, how non-experts deal with the world, and whether they do it better.
might have saved
Yes. Might have.
The other alternative, doing nothing, is always a good way to wash one’s hands of whatever atrocities ensue.
It’s not just a toss-up, and foreign policy expertise is useful, but it doesn’t solve everything. We’ll see, with Trump, how non-experts deal with the world, and whether they do it better.
By the way, Nigel, if you had been making policy, it wouldn’t have been “either / or.” It would have been “pick one.”
By the way, Nigel, if you had been making policy, it wouldn’t have been “either / or.” It would have been “pick one.”
By the way, Nigel, if you had been making policy, it wouldn’t have been “either / or.” It would have been “pick one.”
I found this an interesting interview:
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14042506/steven-pinker-optimistic-future-2016
Basically, as you compare today to history it is just as important to recognize the differences as the similarities.
I found this an interesting interview:
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14042506/steven-pinker-optimistic-future-2016
Basically, as you compare today to history it is just as important to recognize the differences as the similarities.
I found this an interesting interview:
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14042506/steven-pinker-optimistic-future-2016
Basically, as you compare today to history it is just as important to recognize the differences as the similarities.
I’d call a former ambassador to Syria an expert.
And he rightly points out that we just made the situation worse. We encouraged a civil war which made over a third of the population refugees and killed hundreds of thousands. The resulting migration was a large element in destabilising the EU, and tipping the balance in the Brexit vote. Turkey is now an ally of Russia; Putin has a naval base on the Mediterranean.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
I’d call a former ambassador to Syria an expert.
And he rightly points out that we just made the situation worse. We encouraged a civil war which made over a third of the population refugees and killed hundreds of thousands. The resulting migration was a large element in destabilising the EU, and tipping the balance in the Brexit vote. Turkey is now an ally of Russia; Putin has a naval base on the Mediterranean.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
I’d call a former ambassador to Syria an expert.
And he rightly points out that we just made the situation worse. We encouraged a civil war which made over a third of the population refugees and killed hundreds of thousands. The resulting migration was a large element in destabilising the EU, and tipping the balance in the Brexit vote. Turkey is now an ally of Russia; Putin has a naval base on the Mediterranean.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
Good hindsight summation. No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
Good hindsight summation. No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies.
In both humanitarian and realpolitik terms, Syria is a disaster for the West.
Good hindsight summation. No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies.
Why are the Democrats in the Senate wrong, sapient? Anyway, the burden of proof here should be on those who favor helping those committing war crimes.
And I don’t assume experts in and out of the government are giving objective advice anyway. There is a cottage industry of people in think tanks who go in and out of government. There is a swamp to be drained, though all Trump will do is add alligators.
Going to be offline for a few days.
Why are the Democrats in the Senate wrong, sapient? Anyway, the burden of proof here should be on those who favor helping those committing war crimes.
And I don’t assume experts in and out of the government are giving objective advice anyway. There is a cottage industry of people in think tanks who go in and out of government. There is a swamp to be drained, though all Trump will do is add alligators.
Going to be offline for a few days.
Why are the Democrats in the Senate wrong, sapient? Anyway, the burden of proof here should be on those who favor helping those committing war crimes.
And I don’t assume experts in and out of the government are giving objective advice anyway. There is a cottage industry of people in think tanks who go in and out of government. There is a swamp to be drained, though all Trump will do is add alligators.
Going to be offline for a few days.
No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies…
They never are; that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
You asked for an alternate policy – I gave you two.
No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies…
They never are; that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
You asked for an alternate policy – I gave you two.
No counterfactuals are available to argue for the success other strategies…
They never are; that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
You asked for an alternate policy – I gave you two.
Supporting the Syrian rebels was stupid because it was guaranteed to stretch the war out and multiply casualties. There was no reason to think that nice secular rebel would come out on top. It’s weird how after all the revolutions we have seen over the past century that people on all parts of the spectrum still romanticize the idea of violent revolution. In practice, Christians and other religious minorities were terrified by the rebels. If you look around, you will find pictures of Christmas celebrations in Aleppo. The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it. It was a civil war, not a one sided thing with Assad vs ” the Syrian People”.
Supporting the Syrian rebels was stupid because it was guaranteed to stretch the war out and multiply casualties. There was no reason to think that nice secular rebel would come out on top. It’s weird how after all the revolutions we have seen over the past century that people on all parts of the spectrum still romanticize the idea of violent revolution. In practice, Christians and other religious minorities were terrified by the rebels. If you look around, you will find pictures of Christmas celebrations in Aleppo. The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it. It was a civil war, not a one sided thing with Assad vs ” the Syrian People”.
Supporting the Syrian rebels was stupid because it was guaranteed to stretch the war out and multiply casualties. There was no reason to think that nice secular rebel would come out on top. It’s weird how after all the revolutions we have seen over the past century that people on all parts of the spectrum still romanticize the idea of violent revolution. In practice, Christians and other religious minorities were terrified by the rebels. If you look around, you will find pictures of Christmas celebrations in Aleppo. The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it. It was a civil war, not a one sided thing with Assad vs ” the Syrian People”.
This is what you said at first:
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
Now you say that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
“Stupid and immoral” is not equivalent to “mistakes”.
I’m sure we could all go back in time and offer new solutions, and analyzing our “mistakes” is worthwhile. To call people “stupid and immoral” is not useful unless you have evidence that they ignored an obvious solution.
This is what you said at first:
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
Now you say that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
“Stupid and immoral” is not equivalent to “mistakes”.
I’m sure we could all go back in time and offer new solutions, and analyzing our “mistakes” is worthwhile. To call people “stupid and immoral” is not useful unless you have evidence that they ignored an obvious solution.
This is what you said at first:
While it might be true that there are trade offs between effectiveness and morality, giving up one for no apparent benefit in the other is both stupid and immoral.
Now you say that’s just an argument for never acknowledging mistakes.
“Stupid and immoral” is not equivalent to “mistakes”.
I’m sure we could all go back in time and offer new solutions, and analyzing our “mistakes” is worthwhile. To call people “stupid and immoral” is not useful unless you have evidence that they ignored an obvious solution.
The Syria situation began in 2011, Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept. I’m not sure how he could have simply ignored that (recall that there were a lot of questions as to whether there actually were chemical weapons involved, etc.). I also don’t know how he could have put US boots on the ground. A no-fly zone could have had repercussions with Russia (recall Turkey shooting down the Russian fighter in 2015) In addition, the rebels don’t seem to be organized in any way, creating a situation where the US has difficulty finding who to back.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003
There are believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters.
Given those circumstances, I think that it is pretty hard to claim that a better way was obvious and easy to carry out.
The Syria situation began in 2011, Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept. I’m not sure how he could have simply ignored that (recall that there were a lot of questions as to whether there actually were chemical weapons involved, etc.). I also don’t know how he could have put US boots on the ground. A no-fly zone could have had repercussions with Russia (recall Turkey shooting down the Russian fighter in 2015) In addition, the rebels don’t seem to be organized in any way, creating a situation where the US has difficulty finding who to back.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003
There are believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters.
Given those circumstances, I think that it is pretty hard to claim that a better way was obvious and easy to carry out.
The Syria situation began in 2011, Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept. I’m not sure how he could have simply ignored that (recall that there were a lot of questions as to whether there actually were chemical weapons involved, etc.). I also don’t know how he could have put US boots on the ground. A no-fly zone could have had repercussions with Russia (recall Turkey shooting down the Russian fighter in 2015) In addition, the rebels don’t seem to be organized in any way, creating a situation where the US has difficulty finding who to back.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003
There are believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters.
Given those circumstances, I think that it is pretty hard to claim that a better way was obvious and easy to carry out.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/there-are-syrians-who-just-dont-want-to.html
The blogger isn’t a supporter of Assad. He despises the Syrian government.
Now I’m going.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/there-are-syrians-who-just-dont-want-to.html
The blogger isn’t a supporter of Assad. He despises the Syrian government.
Now I’m going.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2016/12/there-are-syrians-who-just-dont-want-to.html
The blogger isn’t a supporter of Assad. He despises the Syrian government.
Now I’m going.
The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it.
If Donald Trump begins committing atrocities against his own people, I’m sure that millions of ordinary Americans will support it.
The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it.
If Donald Trump begins committing atrocities against his own people, I’m sure that millions of ordinary Americans will support it.
The Syrian government is guilty of atrocities and millions of ordinary Syrians supported it.
If Donald Trump begins committing atrocities against his own people, I’m sure that millions of ordinary Americans will support it.
same here. we’re in a weird place, weirdest in my lifetime.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
same here. we’re in a weird place, weirdest in my lifetime.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
same here. we’re in a weird place, weirdest in my lifetime.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept
I agree that way the key point. I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it. Significant intervention (a northern safe haven) might have worked – and could have been sold to the Turks as the price for keeping a million to more refugees out of Turkey.
As it was, Assad continued to use chlorine bombs intermittently throughout the conflict.
It wouldn’t have been cost free, but the long term cost of the current situation is incalculable.
I don’t exempt Europe from blame – the vote in the House of Commons told Obama he would get no backing from us – but if all we were going to do was encourage the rebels, we ought to have considered what fighting on was likely to cost them. The assessment that Assad would fall was clearly wishful thinking.
That the UK went along with encouraging the rebels with tepid support is not to our credit, either.
At a minimum, I would suggest that not intervening in a civil war unless you are fully committed to winning, and understand what that might cost once you have done so, is a good rule.
Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept
I agree that way the key point. I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it. Significant intervention (a northern safe haven) might have worked – and could have been sold to the Turks as the price for keeping a million to more refugees out of Turkey.
As it was, Assad continued to use chlorine bombs intermittently throughout the conflict.
It wouldn’t have been cost free, but the long term cost of the current situation is incalculable.
I don’t exempt Europe from blame – the vote in the House of Commons told Obama he would get no backing from us – but if all we were going to do was encourage the rebels, we ought to have considered what fighting on was likely to cost them. The assessment that Assad would fall was clearly wishful thinking.
That the UK went along with encouraging the rebels with tepid support is not to our credit, either.
At a minimum, I would suggest that not intervening in a civil war unless you are fully committed to winning, and understand what that might cost once you have done so, is a good rule.
Obama and the US were drawn in when Assad began using chemical weapons in Sept
I agree that way the key point. I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it. Significant intervention (a northern safe haven) might have worked – and could have been sold to the Turks as the price for keeping a million to more refugees out of Turkey.
As it was, Assad continued to use chlorine bombs intermittently throughout the conflict.
It wouldn’t have been cost free, but the long term cost of the current situation is incalculable.
I don’t exempt Europe from blame – the vote in the House of Commons told Obama he would get no backing from us – but if all we were going to do was encourage the rebels, we ought to have considered what fighting on was likely to cost them. The assessment that Assad would fall was clearly wishful thinking.
That the UK went along with encouraging the rebels with tepid support is not to our credit, either.
At a minimum, I would suggest that not intervening in a civil war unless you are fully committed to winning, and understand what that might cost once you have done so, is a good rule.
We are leaving today, I promise.
But that last statement was just incredibly silly. The millions of Syrians support Assad as the lesser evil. Many of the so called moderates are in fact Islamists. You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy. So naturally people who justify aiding the Saudis commit war crimes also portray the Syrian civil war as some nursery school fable.
And it wasn’t just you– it has been most of the press and Western politicians. Obama, actually, seems to have recognized the complexity, but no doubt for political reasons did this odd half in and half out strategy.
We are leaving today, I promise.
But that last statement was just incredibly silly. The millions of Syrians support Assad as the lesser evil. Many of the so called moderates are in fact Islamists. You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy. So naturally people who justify aiding the Saudis commit war crimes also portray the Syrian civil war as some nursery school fable.
And it wasn’t just you– it has been most of the press and Western politicians. Obama, actually, seems to have recognized the complexity, but no doubt for political reasons did this odd half in and half out strategy.
We are leaving today, I promise.
But that last statement was just incredibly silly. The millions of Syrians support Assad as the lesser evil. Many of the so called moderates are in fact Islamists. You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy. So naturally people who justify aiding the Saudis commit war crimes also portray the Syrian civil war as some nursery school fable.
And it wasn’t just you– it has been most of the press and Western politicians. Obama, actually, seems to have recognized the complexity, but no doubt for political reasons did this odd half in and half out strategy.
You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy.
I’m not sure who or what you’re talking about.
You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy.
I’m not sure who or what you’re talking about.
You can live in some child- like world where there are Good Syrians on one side and Bad Syrians on the other, but the reality is complex and messy.
I’m not sure who or what you’re talking about.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
I hope it doesn’t look like Syria. I can see how it could, and I’m out of my mind afraid. Of this, and a whole lot of other things. I honestly don’t think that this “peaceful transfer of power” is all it’s cracked up to be.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
I hope it doesn’t look like Syria. I can see how it could, and I’m out of my mind afraid. Of this, and a whole lot of other things. I honestly don’t think that this “peaceful transfer of power” is all it’s cracked up to be.
i have no idea how it’s going to play out.
I hope it doesn’t look like Syria. I can see how it could, and I’m out of my mind afraid. Of this, and a whole lot of other things. I honestly don’t think that this “peaceful transfer of power” is all it’s cracked up to be.
GFtNC: NABA is actually one of the most blogospherical acronyms I throw around, so I’m kinda surprised when that one isn’t recognized. Not As Bad As. Naba, naba, naba.
sapient: Nigel is right. You don’t want to contemplate the possibility of mistakes, and your go-to argument is always the same, and never one that can be turned back on you. If we want you to take us seriously, we have to provide alternatives with arbitrary levels of detail laid out and impossible levels of justification for our conclusions. You? You’re arguing for the status quo ante, so by definition there’s never need to present alternatives, and justification can be handwaved as secret, unknowable, but certainly sufficient. It’s a clever rhetorical ploy, but it’s tiresome, lazy, inequitable, and noxious. Furthermore, Nigel has the right of it: it’s bleeding Panglossian in its refusal to admit mistakes are possible… although of course when past actions don’t meet your approval, the rigor you typically demand in providing and justifying alternative courses of action go straight out of sight.
GFtNC: NABA is actually one of the most blogospherical acronyms I throw around, so I’m kinda surprised when that one isn’t recognized. Not As Bad As. Naba, naba, naba.
sapient: Nigel is right. You don’t want to contemplate the possibility of mistakes, and your go-to argument is always the same, and never one that can be turned back on you. If we want you to take us seriously, we have to provide alternatives with arbitrary levels of detail laid out and impossible levels of justification for our conclusions. You? You’re arguing for the status quo ante, so by definition there’s never need to present alternatives, and justification can be handwaved as secret, unknowable, but certainly sufficient. It’s a clever rhetorical ploy, but it’s tiresome, lazy, inequitable, and noxious. Furthermore, Nigel has the right of it: it’s bleeding Panglossian in its refusal to admit mistakes are possible… although of course when past actions don’t meet your approval, the rigor you typically demand in providing and justifying alternative courses of action go straight out of sight.
GFtNC: NABA is actually one of the most blogospherical acronyms I throw around, so I’m kinda surprised when that one isn’t recognized. Not As Bad As. Naba, naba, naba.
sapient: Nigel is right. You don’t want to contemplate the possibility of mistakes, and your go-to argument is always the same, and never one that can be turned back on you. If we want you to take us seriously, we have to provide alternatives with arbitrary levels of detail laid out and impossible levels of justification for our conclusions. You? You’re arguing for the status quo ante, so by definition there’s never need to present alternatives, and justification can be handwaved as secret, unknowable, but certainly sufficient. It’s a clever rhetorical ploy, but it’s tiresome, lazy, inequitable, and noxious. Furthermore, Nigel has the right of it: it’s bleeding Panglossian in its refusal to admit mistakes are possible… although of course when past actions don’t meet your approval, the rigor you typically demand in providing and justifying alternative courses of action go straight out of sight.
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
Thanks, lj, for reality checking with that wonderful article.
Thanks, lj, for reality checking with that wonderful article.
Thanks, lj, for reality checking with that wonderful article.
I’m only part way through lj’s linked piece from The Atlantic, but I had to put this excerpt up just for amusement:
I’m only part way through lj’s linked piece from The Atlantic, but I had to put this excerpt up just for amusement:
I’m only part way through lj’s linked piece from The Atlantic, but I had to put this excerpt up just for amusement:
“I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it.”
FWIW, IMO it would have been of use to make a very specific military response. Blow some stuff up, where for “some stuff” read something more like military infrastructure and less like civilian people.
That could have been done without commiting to one side or the other. Or others. Just make the point that using chemical weapons on your own people will elicit a response.
Obama could have done it on his own authority, no doubt. And it would immediately have been condemned as executive overreach. He did ask for Congressional support for military action, it was not on offer.
Bold and fearless leaders, our Congress.
The horrifying mess in Syria has a thousand fathers, as the saying goes. Send money to MSF and the white helmets.
“I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it.”
FWIW, IMO it would have been of use to make a very specific military response. Blow some stuff up, where for “some stuff” read something more like military infrastructure and less like civilian people.
That could have been done without commiting to one side or the other. Or others. Just make the point that using chemical weapons on your own people will elicit a response.
Obama could have done it on his own authority, no doubt. And it would immediately have been condemned as executive overreach. He did ask for Congressional support for military action, it was not on offer.
Bold and fearless leaders, our Congress.
The horrifying mess in Syria has a thousand fathers, as the saying goes. Send money to MSF and the white helmets.
“I remember the ‘red line’ statement – and then little of significance being done about it.”
FWIW, IMO it would have been of use to make a very specific military response. Blow some stuff up, where for “some stuff” read something more like military infrastructure and less like civilian people.
That could have been done without commiting to one side or the other. Or others. Just make the point that using chemical weapons on your own people will elicit a response.
Obama could have done it on his own authority, no doubt. And it would immediately have been condemned as executive overreach. He did ask for Congressional support for military action, it was not on offer.
Bold and fearless leaders, our Congress.
The horrifying mess in Syria has a thousand fathers, as the saying goes. Send money to MSF and the white helmets.
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much. They’re more than a little sketchy.
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much. They’re more than a little sketchy.
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much. They’re more than a little sketchy.
The recent protestations of the normally silent or quietly diplomatic Ban Ki Moon over what is going on in Syria suggest that this depressing account is pretty accurate:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/aleppos-evacuation-is-a-crime-against-humanity
The recent protestations of the normally silent or quietly diplomatic Ban Ki Moon over what is going on in Syria suggest that this depressing account is pretty accurate:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/aleppos-evacuation-is-a-crime-against-humanity
The recent protestations of the normally silent or quietly diplomatic Ban Ki Moon over what is going on in Syria suggest that this depressing account is pretty accurate:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/aleppos-evacuation-is-a-crime-against-humanity
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much.
Whatever floats your boat.
Too late now to prevent anything, whatever anyone wants to do to help out after the fact is better than doing nothing.
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much.
Whatever floats your boat.
Too late now to prevent anything, whatever anyone wants to do to help out after the fact is better than doing nothing.
I’m in favor of the former. White Helmets… not so much.
Whatever floats your boat.
Too late now to prevent anything, whatever anyone wants to do to help out after the fact is better than doing nothing.
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
I understand that – and I do not underestimate the role Britain played in refusing to back active intervention
Given that decision, and subsequent ones not to intervene to protect civilians (no fly zones; safe havens; airdrops of food etc), the covert intervention to support the rebellion and prolong the civil war seems to me far less defensible.
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
I understand that – and I do not underestimate the role Britain played in refusing to back active intervention
Given that decision, and subsequent ones not to intervene to protect civilians (no fly zones; safe havens; airdrops of food etc), the covert intervention to support the rebellion and prolong the civil war seems to me far less defensible.
chemical weapons, 2011 means going into the 2012 reelection campaign. Like it or not, this is part of the context with that decision.
I understand that – and I do not underestimate the role Britain played in refusing to back active intervention
Given that decision, and subsequent ones not to intervene to protect civilians (no fly zones; safe havens; airdrops of food etc), the covert intervention to support the rebellion and prolong the civil war seems to me far less defensible.